Muschett v HM Prison Service [2008] UKEAT 0132_08_2608 (26 August 2008)

Muschett v HM Prison Service [2008] UKEAT 0132_08_2608 (26 August 2008)

No implied contract of employment existed between the appellant and the Prison Service due to absence of mutuality of obligation and compatibility with agency arrangements; appellant was not an employee for purposes of Employment Rights Act 1996 or discrimination legislation; contract worker provisions did not apply as appellant was not employed by the agency; no procedural unfairness occurred; deposit requirement was properly imposed.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0132_08_2608
Parties
Appellant: E Muschett; First Respondent: HM Prison Service; Second Respondent: Brook Street (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract of Employment, Agency Workers, Jurisdiction, Unfair Dismissal, Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Contract Worker Provisions
Employment Law Discrimination Law Contract of Employment Agency Workers Jurisdiction Unfair Dismissal Race Discrimination Sex Discrimination +2 more

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

Parties

E Muschett

Appellant

HM Prison Service

First Respondent

Brook Street (UK) Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied contract of employment existed between agency worker and end user
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was an employee for purposes of Employment Rights Act 1996 and discrimination legislation
  3. 3 Whether contract worker provisions applied

Ratio Decidendi

No implied contract of employment existed between the appellant and the Prison Service due to absence of mutuality of obligation and compatibility with agency arrangements; appellant was not an employee for purposes of Employment Rights Act 1996 or discrimination legislation; contract worker provisions did not apply as appellant was not employed by the agency; no procedural unfairness occurred; deposit requirement was properly imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No error found in Tribunal Chairman's decision