Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine (JURISDICTIONAL POINTS - Worker, employee or neither) {2019] UKEAT 18_0219_0512 (05 December 2019)

Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine (JURISDICTIONAL POINTS - Worker, employee or neither) {2019] UKEAT 18_0219_0512 (05 December 2019)

The Tribunal correctly found that the Claimant was a worker when undertaking fixed slots for the Respondent, as he was under control, required to perform personally, and not in business on his own account. The right to release a slot was not a genuine right of substitution. The Respondent was not a client or customer of the Claimant's business. Employee status was not established due to lack of mutuality of obligation and the academic nature of the point. The Tribunal's findings on ad hoc jobs and hours worked were not perverse.

Citation
[2017] IRLR 323
Parties
Appellant: Stuart Delivery Limited; Respondent: Mr W Augustine
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Employee Status, Contract of Employment, Substitution Rights, Business on Own Account
Employment Law Worker Status Employee Status Contract of Employment Substitution Rights Business on Own Account

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Delivery Limited

Appellant

Mr W Augustine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was a worker or employee under s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was in business on his own account
  3. 3 Whether the right of substitution was inconsistent with worker status

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal correctly found that the Claimant was a worker when undertaking fixed slots for the Respondent, as he was under control, required to perform personally, and not in business on his own account. The right to release a slot was not a genuine right of substitution. The Respondent was not a client or customer of the Claimant's business. Employee status was not established due to lack of mutuality of obligation and the academic nature of the point. The Tribunal's findings on ad hoc jobs and hours worked were not perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Tribunal's finding that Claimant was a worker upheld
  • Tribunal's finding that Claimant was not an employee upheld