Croke v Hydro Aluminium Worcester Ltd [2007] UKEAT 0238_05_0404 (4 April 2007)

Croke v Hydro Aluminium Worcester Ltd [2007] UKEAT 0238_05_0404 (4 April 2007)

Mr Croke was introduced and supplied to Hydro by Huxley as an individual to do the work, satisfying the statutory conditions for 'worker' status under section 43(K) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the introduction aspect and by focusing solely on contractual formalities rather than the realities of the arrangement.

Citation
[2007] UKEAT 0238_05_0404
Parties
Appellant: Mr Croke; First Respondent: Huxley Associates Ltd; Second Respondent: Hydro Automotive Structures UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in relation to section 43(K); dismissed in relation to implied contract under section 230.
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Worker Status, Employment Rights Act 1996, Agency Workers
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Worker Status Employment Rights Act 1996 Agency Workers

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Croke

Appellant

Huxley Associates Ltd

First Respondent

Hydro Automotive Structures UK Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Croke was a 'worker' under section 43(K) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether Mr Croke was supplied or introduced to Hydro by Huxley
  3. 3 Whether there was an implied contract between Mr Croke and Hydro

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Croke was introduced and supplied to Hydro by Huxley as an individual to do the work, satisfying the statutory conditions for 'worker' status under section 43(K) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the introduction aspect and by focusing solely on contractual formalities rather than the realities of the arrangement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in relation to section 43(K); dismissed in relation to implied contract under section 230.

Orders

  • Remitted to Employment Tribunal for determination of substantive claim under Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.