Autoclenz Ltd v. Belcher & Ors [2008] UKEAT 0160_08_0406 (4 June 2008)

Autoclenz Ltd v. Belcher & Ors [2008] UKEAT 0160_08_0406 (4 June 2008)

Claimants were not employees due to lack of mutuality of obligation and absence of sham in contractual terms, but were limb (b) workers as they undertook personal service for the respondent and the respondent was not a client or customer.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0160_08_0406
Parties
Claimants: Mr Belcher and others; Respondent: Autoclenz Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Worker Definition, Contractual Interpretation, Mutuality of Obligation
Employment Law Employment Status Worker Definition Contractual Interpretation Mutuality of Obligation

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Belcher and others

Claimants

Autoclenz Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants were employees or limb (b) workers under statutory definitions
  2. 2 Whether contractual terms reflected the true nature of the relationship
  3. 3 Whether substitution and obligation clauses were genuine or a sham

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants were not employees due to lack of mutuality of obligation and absence of sham in contractual terms, but were limb (b) workers as they undertook personal service for the respondent and the respondent was not a client or customer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that claimants are not employees of the respondent
  • Declaration that claimants are workers for purposes of ERA, WTR, and NMWR