Sheenan v Post Office Counters Ltd [1998] UKEAT 417_98_0111 (1 November 1998)

Sheenan v Post Office Counters Ltd [1998] UKEAT 417_98_0111 (1 November 1998)

The dominant purpose of the subpostmaster's contract was the provision of Post Office services, not the personal execution of work by Mr Sheehan. The personal obligations imposed were minimal and ancillary. Therefore, the contract did not fall within the statutory definition of employment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Citation
[1998] UKEAT 417_98_0111
Parties
Appellant: Mr Sheehan; Respondent: Post Office Counters Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Industrial Tribunal / Preliminary Issue on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Employment, Disability Discrimination, Contract for Services Vs Contract of Service, Personal Service Contracts
Employment Law Discrimination Law Definition of Employment Disability Discrimination Contract for Services Vs Contract of Service Personal Service Contracts

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Sheehan

Appellant

Post Office Counters Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Industrial Tribunal / Preliminary Issue on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subpostmaster under a modified subpostmaster's contract is in 'employment under a contract personally to do any work' within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaint

Ratio Decidendi

The dominant purpose of the subpostmaster's contract was the provision of Post Office services, not the personal execution of work by Mr Sheehan. The personal obligations imposed were minimal and ancillary. Therefore, the contract did not fall within the statutory definition of employment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.