I C Morrison v Ods Business Services Ltd & Ors [2007] UKEAT 0618_06_2106 (21 June 2007)

I C Morrison v Ods Business Services Ltd & Ors [2007] UKEAT 0618_06_2106 (21 June 2007)

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the facts, that the Appellant was not employed under a contract of service because, despite the existence of a contract with many hallmarks of employment, the Appellant's effective control over the company and his own terms meant he was answerable only to himself, negating the necessary element of control by the employer.

Citation
[2007] UKEAT 0618_06_2106
Parties
Appellant: A; First Respondent: ODS Business Services Ltd; Second Respondent: Thamesdown SDC Ltd (in administration); Third Respondent: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (DTI)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
21 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Employee, Contract of Employment, Controlling Shareholder as Employee, Employment Rights Act 1996, Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations
Employment Law Company Law Definition of Employee Contract of Employment Controlling Shareholder as Employee Employment Rights Act 1996 Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 18
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Appellant

ODS Business Services Ltd

First Respondent

Thamesdown SDC Ltd (in administration)

Second Respondent

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (DTI)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a controlling shareholder and director was employed under a contract of service within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the facts, that the Appellant was not employed under a contract of service because, despite the existence of a contract with many hallmarks of employment, the Appellant's effective control over the company and his own terms meant he was answerable only to himself, negating the necessary element of control by the employer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed; the Employment Tribunal's decision stands.