Patel v DPD Group UK Ltd (EMPLOYEE, WORKER OR SELF EMPLOYED) [2024] EAT 202 (05 March 2024)

Patel v DPD Group UK Ltd (EMPLOYEE, WORKER OR SELF EMPLOYED) [2024] EAT 202 (05 March 2024)

The claimant was not an employee or worker because the contract provided a genuine right of substitution and did not require personal service. The Tribunal did not err in striking out the claim as there were no distinguishing features from previous cases, and the contract reflected the true relationship between the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EAT 202
Parties
Appellant: Mr P Patel; Respondent: DPD Group UK Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Employee Status, Personal Service, Right of Substitution, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Worker Status Employee Status Personal Service Right of Substitution Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr P Patel

Appellant

DPD Group UK Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was an employee or worker under s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in striking out the claim without investigating the claimant's particular circumstances
  3. 3 Whether a genuine right of substitution precludes worker or employee status

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not an employee or worker because the contract provided a genuine right of substitution and did not require personal service. The Tribunal did not err in striking out the claim as there were no distinguishing features from previous cases, and the contract reflected the true relationship between the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out
  • No further investigation required into claimant's circumstances