Bryant v Britannia Developments Ltd [2003] UKEAT 0142_02_1403 (14 March 2003)

Bryant v Britannia Developments Ltd [2003] UKEAT 0142_02_1403 (14 March 2003)

The Tribunal erred in its interpretation of Regulation 2 by excluding Mr Bryant from the definition of 'worker' solely because the contract was with a group rather than an individual. The definition does not require exclusivity of personal service by a single individual under the contract.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0142_02_1403
Parties
Appellant: Mr Bryant; Respondent: Britannia Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Definition of Worker, Holiday Pay, Working Time Regulations 1998, Contractual Arrangements
Employment Law Definition of Worker Holiday Pay Working Time Regulations 1998 Contractual Arrangements

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Bryant

Appellant

Britannia Developments Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Bryant qualifies as a 'worker' under Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
  2. 2 Whether the contractual arrangement between Mr Bryant and Britannia Developments Limited entitles him to holiday pay

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in its interpretation of Regulation 2 by excluding Mr Bryant from the definition of 'worker' solely because the contract was with a group rather than an individual. The definition does not require exclusivity of personal service by a single individual under the contract.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • matter remitted to a fresh Tribunal for reconsideration with lay members