Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd (Employee, Worker or Self Employed) [2022] EAT 91 (16 June 2022)

Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd (Employee, Worker or Self Employed) [2022] EAT 91 (16 June 2022)

The employment tribunal erred by focusing on contractual wording and requiring a sham to disregard it, failing to ascertain the true agreement and apply the statutory test. There was a contract and requirement for personal service, with fetters on substitution. The claimant was a worker under ERA and EQA; the respondent was not merely a client or customer of the claimant's business undertaking.

Citation
[2022] EAT 91
Parties
Claimant: Dr. [Claimant's Name Redacted]; Respondent: [Respondent Dental Practice Group Name Redacted]
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; employment tribunal decision set aside.
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Personal Service, Mutuality of Obligation, Substitution Clause, Contract Interpretation, Discrimination
Employment Law Equality Law Worker Status Personal Service Mutuality of Obligation Substitution Clause Contract Interpretation Discrimination

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. [Claimant's Name Redacted]

Claimant

[Respondent Dental Practice Group Name Redacted]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a 'worker' under section 230(3)(b) ERA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was an 'employee' under section 83(2)(a) EQA
  3. 3 Correct application of statutory test for worker status

Ratio Decidendi

The employment tribunal erred by focusing on contractual wording and requiring a sham to disregard it, failing to ascertain the true agreement and apply the statutory test. There was a contract and requirement for personal service, with fetters on substitution. The claimant was a worker under ERA and EQA; the respondent was not merely a client or customer of the claimant's business undertaking.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; employment tribunal decision set aside.

Orders

  • Employment tribunal's finding that claimant was not a worker is reversed.
  • Case remitted for further determination consistent with this judgment.