Community Dental Centres Ltd v. Sultan- Darmon [2010] UKEAT 0532_09_1208 (12 August 2010)

Community Dental Centres Ltd v. Sultan- Darmon [2010] UKEAT 0532_09_1208 (12 August 2010)

The Claimant was not a 'worker' within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the contract allowed him an unfettered right to appoint a substitute (locum) to perform his duties, negating the requirement to undertake to perform work personally.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0532_09_1208
Parties
Appellant: Community Dental Centres Ltd; Respondent: Georges Sultan-Darmon
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Unlawful Deduction From Wages, Personal Service Requirement, Employment Rights Act 1996 S.230(3)
Employment Law Worker Status Unlawful Deduction From Wages Personal Service Requirement Employment Rights Act 1996 S.230(3)

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Community Dental Centres Ltd

Appellant

Georges Sultan-Darmon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was a 'worker' within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the right to appoint a substitute (locum) precludes worker status

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was not a 'worker' within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the contract allowed him an unfettered right to appoint a substitute (locum) to perform his duties, negating the requirement to undertake to perform work personally.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Claimant was not a 'worker' within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996