Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Employment Appeal Tribunal held the claimant had not pleaded a section 43K(1)(a) whistleblowing worker case against LEG and dismissed the appeal.
The claimant was a worker, not self-employed, as the respondent exercised significant control over his work, pay, and hours, and there was no contractual or written authorisation for wage deductions. The claimant was entitled to holiday pay and repayment of unauthorised deductions.
Source excerpt
The Employment Appeal Tribunal refused an appeal by the Advocate General for Scotland, upholding findings that an Army reservist was a worker and had suffered unlawful less favourable treatment.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom [2026] EWCA Civ 6 (14 January 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that a Coastguard Rescue Officer was a worker when attending paid activities, because the arrangement created a contract for services.
The Court of Appeal held that a Coastguard Rescue Officer who attended remunerated activities was a worker under section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996.
The claimant was not a 'worker' under section 230 ERA 1996, Regulation 2 WTR 1998, or the EU Working Time Directive, as there was no direct contract between him and the respondent; the contract existed between the Health Board and the partnership, not the individual. The regulatory framework did not create the requisite subordination or direction for EU worker status. The Employment Tribunal's approach and conclusions were correct in law and supported by established authority.
Source excerpt
The contested order requiring all claimants to provide particulars of multi-apping was irrational, oppressive, and disproportionate; the judge failed to properly strike the proportionality balance and excluded relevant purposes from consideration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has power to substitute its own case management order and does so to limit the burden and further the overriding objective.
Source excerpt
The tribunal erred in concluding there was sufficient mutuality of obligation to establish employment and that the right of substitution was impracticable; its findings on worker and employee status were insufficiently supported or explained and conflicted with other findings. The finding that the contract was with the claimant personally stands, but the conclusions on worker and employee status are quashed.
Source excerpt
The Employment Tribunal's finding that the substitution clause was not genuine and did not reflect the true agreement between the parties was based on credible evidence, practical realities, and the absence of any actual use of substitutes over 25 years. The Tribunal did not err in law by its treatment of witness evidence or substitution interactions, and its conclusion that the claimants were 'workers' was rational and inevitable.
Source excerpt
The EAT held the tribunal wrongly treated earlier employee-status findings as decisive on worker status and remitted the case to decide the client-or-customer issue.
Explore more
