Yorkshire Window Company Ltd v. Parkes [2010] UKEAT 0484_09_2705 (27 May 2010)

Yorkshire Window Company Ltd v. Parkes [2010] UKEAT 0484_09_2705 (27 May 2010)

The Claimant was a 'worker' within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because he was contractually required to perform work personally for the Respondent, the right to substitute was limited and not genuinely unfettered, and the relationship was not one of client or customer of a business undertaking. The appeal was not properly constituted due to failure to lodge all relevant judgments and reasons, but the Tribunal exercised discretion to consider the merits. The Employment Tribunal's findings were upheld.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0484_09_2705
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (Name not specified); Respondent: Respondent (Name not specified)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Working Time Regulations, Definition of Worker, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Personal Service Obligation, Appeal Documentation Requirements
Employment Law Working Time Regulations Definition of Worker Employment Tribunal Procedure Personal Service Obligation Appeal Documentation Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Name not specified)

Claimant

Respondent (Name not specified)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was a 'worker' under Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for holiday pay
  3. 3 Whether the appeal was properly constituted due to procedural compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was a 'worker' within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 because he was contractually required to perform work personally for the Respondent, the right to substitute was limited and not genuinely unfettered, and the relationship was not one of client or customer of a business undertaking. The appeal was not properly constituted due to failure to lodge all relevant judgments and reasons, but the Tribunal exercised discretion to consider the merits. The Employment Tribunal's findings were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the Employment Tribunal's decision that the Claimant is a 'worker' stands.
  • Future appeals must comply strictly with documentation requirements or risk rejection.