Knight v. BCCP Ltd [2011] UKEAT 0413_10_1603 (16 March 2011)

Knight v. BCCP Ltd [2011] UKEAT 0413_10_1603 (16 March 2011)

There was no mutuality of obligation between the Claimant and Respondent, as the Claimant was not obliged to work and the Respondent was not obliged to provide work. Therefore, the Claimant was not an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and not entitled to notice under section 86.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0413_10_1603
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Danny Knight; Respondent: BCCP Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision and Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Mutuality of Obligation, Contract of Service, Worker Definition, Notice Entitlement
Employment Law Employment Status Mutuality of Obligation Contract of Service Worker Definition Notice Entitlement

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danny Knight

Appellant/claimant

BCCP Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision and Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was an employee entitled to notice under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient mutuality of obligation to constitute a contract of employment

Ratio Decidendi

There was no mutuality of obligation between the Claimant and Respondent, as the Claimant was not obliged to work and the Respondent was not obliged to provide work. Therefore, the Claimant was not an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and not entitled to notice under section 86.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.