M & P Steelcraft Ltd v Ellis & Anor [2008] UKEAT 0536_07_2201 (21 February 2008)

M & P Steelcraft Ltd v Ellis & Anor [2008] UKEAT 0536_07_2201 (21 February 2008)

The arrangement between the prisoner, employer, and prison was not located in the employment field; its dominant purpose was rehabilitation, not employment. No contract of employment existed during the relevant period, and the exclusion clause was valid as section 203 Employment Rights Act 1996 was inapplicable. The claimant was not an employee while working for the employer during imprisonment.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0536_07_2201
Parties
Interested Party: H M Prison Service; Employer: M & P Steelcraft Ltd; Claimant: Mr R J Ellis
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
21 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Employee Status, Tripartite Agreements, Intention to Create Legal Relations, Contractual Exclusion Clauses, Statutory Rights, Rehabilitation Schemes
Employment Law Worker Status Employee Status Tripartite Agreements Intention to Create Legal Relations Contractual Exclusion Clauses Statutory Rights Rehabilitation Schemes

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H M Prison Service

Interested Party

M & P Steelcraft Ltd

Employer

Mr R J Ellis

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prisoner working under a tripartite resettlement scheme is an employee
  2. 2 Validity of exclusion clause purporting to prevent legal consequences
  3. 3 Applicability of section 203 Employment Rights Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangement between the prisoner, employer, and prison was not located in the employment field; its dominant purpose was rehabilitation, not employment. No contract of employment existed during the relevant period, and the exclusion clause was valid as section 203 Employment Rights Act 1996 was inapplicable. The claimant was not an employee while working for the employer during imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • Claimant was not an employee during prison placement; period of employment while in prison does not count towards continuity for statutory rights.