Clyde & Co LLP v Van Winkelhof (Jurisdictional Points : Worker, employee or neither) [2012] UKEAT 0168_12_2604 (26 April 2012)

Clyde & Co LLP v Van Winkelhof (Jurisdictional Points : Worker, employee or neither) [2012] UKEAT 0168_12_2604 (26 April 2012)

The Claimant was a limb (b) worker under section 230(3) ERA as she was recruited to work as an integral part of the Respondent's operation, not as an independent business with the Respondent as client. The Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction as the Claimant's working relationship had sufficiently strong connections with Great Britain.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0168_12_2604
Parties
Claimant: Mrs K L Bates van Winkelhof; First Respondent: Clyde & Co LLP; Second Respondent: Mr J Morris
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Pre Hearing Review Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed, cross-appeal and disclosure appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Whistleblowing, Sex Discrimination, Pregnancy Discrimination, Employment Rights Act 1996, Equality Act 2010
Employment Law Equality Law Worker Status Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Whistleblowing Sex Discrimination Pregnancy Discrimination Employment Rights Act 1996 +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs K L Bates van Winkelhof

Claimant

Clyde & Co LLP

First Respondent

Mr J Morris

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Pre Hearing Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was a limb (b) worker under section 230(3) ERA
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction to hear the claims under ERA and EqA

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was a limb (b) worker under section 230(3) ERA as she was recruited to work as an integral part of the Respondent's operation, not as an independent business with the Respondent as client. The Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction as the Claimant's working relationship had sufficiently strong connections with Great Britain.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, cross-appeal and disclosure appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Claimant is a limb (b) worker under section 230(3) ERA.
  • Employment Judge Grewal's disclosure order to take effect by 4.00pm on 10 May 2012.