Murray v. Newha Citizens Advice Bureau [2000] UKEAT 1096_99_0607 (6 July 2000)

Murray v. Newha Citizens Advice Bureau [2000] UKEAT 1096_99_0607 (6 July 2000)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by concluding that the agreement did not create mutually binding obligations and by treating the absence of pay as determinative. The Tribunal also misapplied Section 41(a) by restricting its scope to arrangements relating to specific job vacancies. The matter must be remitted for factual findings on whether the agreement is a contract personally to do work and whether the training programme is an arrangement under Section 41(a).

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 1096_99_0607
Parties
Appellant: Mr Murray; Respondent: Newham Citizen's Advice Bureau Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision on Preliminary Jurisdictional Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Definition of Employment, Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal, Interpretation of Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Employment Law Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Employment Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal Interpretation of Disability Discrimination Act 1995

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Murray

Appellant

Newham Citizen's Advice Bureau Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision on Preliminary Jurisdictional Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's role as a trainee voluntary adviser constitutes 'employment' under Section 68 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the arrangements for the training programme fall within Section 41(a) as arrangements for determining to whom employment should be offered

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by concluding that the agreement did not create mutually binding obligations and by treating the absence of pay as determinative. The Tribunal also misapplied Section 41(a) by restricting its scope to arrangements relating to specific job vacancies. The matter must be remitted for factual findings on whether the agreement is a contract personally to do work and whether the training programme is an arrangement under Section 41(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside

Orders

  • Case remitted to a different Employment Tribunal to determine afresh whether the agreement constitutes a contract personally to do work and whether the training programme is an arrangement under Section 41(a)