Plastering Contractors Stanmore Ltd v Holden (Jurisdictional Points : Worker, employee or neither) [2014] UKEAT 0074_14_0707 (7 July 2014)

Plastering Contractors Stanmore Ltd v Holden (Jurisdictional Points : Worker, employee or neither) [2014] UKEAT 0074_14_0707 (7 July 2014)

The necessary mutuality of obligation existed during periods when Mr Holden was working for PCS, and the Employment Judge made no error of law in finding that Mr Holden was a worker under the statutory definitions. The right to substitute was at most very limited, and Mr Holden was sufficiently integrated and under control to satisfy the statutory test.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0074_14_0707
Parties
Appellant: Plastering Contractors Stanmore Ltd; Respondent: Mr Patrick Holden
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Mutuality of Obligation, Personal Service, Integration Into Workforce, Right to Substitute, Control, Holiday Pay, Unlawful Deduction From Wages
Employment Law Worker Status Mutuality of Obligation Personal Service Integration Into Workforce Right to Substitute Control Holiday Pay +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plastering Contractors Stanmore Ltd

Appellant

Mr Patrick Holden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Holden was a 'worker' under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient mutuality of obligation to establish worker status
  3. 3 Whether the right to substitute, degree of control, and integration into the workforce affected worker status

Ratio Decidendi

The necessary mutuality of obligation existed during periods when Mr Holden was working for PCS, and the Employment Judge made no error of law in finding that Mr Holden was a worker under the statutory definitions. The right to substitute was at most very limited, and Mr Holden was sufficiently integrated and under control to satisfy the statutory test.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Employment Judge's decision upheld.
  • Matter remitted for remedy hearing if parties cannot settle.