Consistent Group Ltd v. Kalwak & Ors [2007] UKEAT 0535_06_1805 (18 May 2007)

Consistent Group Ltd v. Kalwak & Ors [2007] UKEAT 0535_06_1805 (18 May 2007)

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the claimants were employees of the agency, as the reality of the relationship involved personal service, mutual obligations, and significant control by the agency, despite contractual terms purporting to deny employee status. The lack of day-to-day control by the agency did not preclude employment status in this exceptional case.

Citation
[2007] UKEAT 0535_06_1805
Parties
Appellant: Consistent Group Ltd; First Respondent: Welsh Country Foods Ltd; Second Respondent: Claimants (Polish workers)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Preliminary Determination
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Employee, Contract of Employment, Worker Status, Agency Workers, Mutuality of Obligation, Control, Sham Contracts
Employment Law Definition of Employee Contract of Employment Worker Status Agency Workers Mutuality of Obligation Control Sham Contracts

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consistent Group Ltd

Appellant

Welsh Country Foods Ltd

First Respondent

Claimants (Polish workers)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Preliminary Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants were employees or workers under statutory definitions
  2. 2 Whether the agency exercised sufficient control to establish employment
  3. 3 Whether contractual terms denying employee status were a sham

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the claimants were employees of the agency, as the reality of the relationship involved personal service, mutual obligations, and significant control by the agency, despite contractual terms purporting to deny employee status. The lack of day-to-day control by the agency did not preclude employment status in this exceptional case.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Case to proceed to hearing on the merits