Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd v Buckborough & Anor [2008] UKEAT 0528_07_1010 (10 October 2008)

Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd v Buckborough & Anor [2008] UKEAT 0528_07_1010 (10 October 2008)

The Tribunal was entitled to find, as a matter of fact, that the substitution clause in the contract was a sham and did not reflect the parties' true intentions, and that the claimants were under a contract personally to execute work, thus falling within the definition of 'worker' under Regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0528_07_1010
Parties
Appellant: Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd; Respondent/claimant: Mr Buckborough; Respondent/claimant: Mr Sewell
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's decision upheld
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Holiday Pay, Working Time Regulations, Sham Contracts, Personal Service Obligation
Employment Law Worker Status Holiday Pay Working Time Regulations Sham Contracts Personal Service Obligation

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd

Appellant

Mr Buckborough

Respondent/claimant

Mr Sewell

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were 'workers' under Regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
  2. 2 Whether the substitution clause in the contract was a sham
  3. 3 Whether the contract imposed an obligation of personal service

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find, as a matter of fact, that the substitution clause in the contract was a sham and did not reflect the parties' true intentions, and that the claimants were under a contract personally to execute work, thus falling within the definition of 'worker' under Regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's decision upheld

Orders

  • Claimants are workers under Regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
  • Entitled to compensation for accrued holiday entitlement