Adjustmatic Beds Ltd v. Fulton [2001] UKEAT 1328_00_2603 (26 March 2001)

Permission granted for hearing as it is arguable Mr Fulton may have been an agent, not an employee, based on contract interpretation and relevant factors.

Citation: [2001] UKEAT 1328_00_2603
Parties: Appellant: Mr Fulton; Respondent: Unknown Respondent
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 26 March 2001
Procedural Posture: Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome: Permission granted for hearing; no final decision on merits.
Legal Topics: Employment Status, Agency Vs Employment, Unfair Dismissal

Employment Law Employment Status Agency Vs Employment Unfair Dismissal

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 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Mr Fulton

Appellant

Unknown Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mr Fulton was an employee or an agent under the written contract
2 Implications for unfair dismissal claim

Ratio Decidendi

Permission granted for hearing as it is arguable Mr Fulton may have been an agent, not an employee, based on contract interpretation and relevant factors.

Court Disposition

Permission granted for hearing; no final decision on merits.

Orders

Skeleton arguments to be submitted fourteen days before hearing.
Copies of authorities to be relied upon seven days before hearing.