Action Contracts (East Midlands) Ltd v Ablitt & Anor [2008] UKEAT 0568_07_1707 (17 July 2008)

Action Contracts (East Midlands) Ltd v Ablitt & Anor [2008] UKEAT 0568_07_1707 (17 July 2008)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by misapplying the tests for mutuality of obligation and control, failing to find any obligation on Action to provide work or on the claimant to accept work, and by disregarding clear express contractual terms negating such obligations. Absent a finding that the contracts were a sham, there was no basis to imply a contract of employment.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0568_07_1707
Parties
Appellant / First Respondent Below: Action Contracts (East Midlands) Ltd; Claimant / Respondent: Janet Ablitt; Second Respondent: Asfordby Storage & Haulage Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a fresh Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Agency Workers, Unfair Dismissal, Employment Status, Mutuality of Obligation, Control Test, Contract of Employment
Employment Law Agency Workers Unfair Dismissal Employment Status Mutuality of Obligation Control Test Contract of Employment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Action Contracts (East Midlands) Ltd

Appellant / First Respondent Below

Janet Ablitt

Claimant / Respondent

Asfordby Storage & Haulage Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was an employee of the agency (Action) for the purposes of unfair dismissal claim
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient mutuality of obligation and control to constitute a contract of employment between the claimant and Action

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by misapplying the tests for mutuality of obligation and control, failing to find any obligation on Action to provide work or on the claimant to accept work, and by disregarding clear express contractual terms negating such obligations. Absent a finding that the contracts were a sham, there was no basis to imply a contract of employment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a fresh Tribunal.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The Employment Tribunal's decision is set aside.