Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

employment status (categories of workers (partner (Stekel v Ellis being…

- - - - Dacas v Brook street mutual contract over long period (latent) could generate implied contract
        
        Spyra v Ryanair in Ireland accepted Dacas
        
        UK James v Greenwich rejected Dacas
      - agency worker not usually employee except where relationship is a sham, concurrent contract, statute deems worker to be employee
      - PMPA no employment relationship, no contract between worker and end user (contract between worker and agency - between agency and end user)
    - - Bunce v Postworth no obligation to accept assignments, not obliged to accept - reality important
      - Brightwater worker sent to work in UCD, required to notify agency of hours worked, pay grievances and responsibility - not managerial control - not employee
- - - - asserting worker is owner and provider of expensive equipment
        
        protectacoat v Szilgayi unskilled foreign worker 'owned' expensive equipment - reality was a sham
      - clauses asserting right of delegation
        
        Autoclenz
      - appearance no mutuality of obigation
        
        Consistent Group v Kulwak 6 months in veg factory, hotel provided for 6 months - contract claimed on demand - in reality provided work for 6 months
    - - snook all parties must have common intention
      - consistent Group finding a sham contract dependent on both parties painting false picture
    - - objective to prevent deception - common intention is high (unless commercial case)
      - powerful and vulnerable parties - unequal bargaining positions
      - what is true arrangement - if formal arrangement and agreement don't match could be a sham
      - uber used Autoclenz to look beyond contract - conduct, social medial, management
      - applied in Leyland v Parcelnet drivers for delivery company, contract said unlimited right to substitute, but company could veto and had to be informed - contract did not reflect true agreement
- - - - not being in business on ones own account
      - control
  - - - Quashie v Stringfellows stripper paid licence fee, client paid her in tokens, not an employer - provided licence
      - uber detailed micromanagement meant drivers were employees
      - Hong Kong Golf Club - caddies paid directly by golfers, licence from club
    - - O'Kelly v Trusthouse forte waiter for short stints, no commitment to level of work, no obligation to provide further surfaces. self-employed
      - Barry v Minister for Ag vet inspectors on demand, no obligation to provide work and inspectors to work - self-employed
        
        doesn't Address Denny 'as it thinks fit, retain services'
      - long term commitment to provide work and do work
      - Brightwater HC - harsh can only be changed by SC
      - obiter from Pimlico as required - no guarantee of future work
    - - Sharpe v Bishop of Worcester no power of bishop to dismiss, no reference to holidays or hours of work, - not a typical employment relationship
    - - unlimited powers of delegation
      - Pimlico plumbers v Smith right of substitution limited - had to be Pimlico plumber - limitation on substitution right
      - Deliveroo contracts contained clause allowing contract to be changed, 11 days before contract changed to allow for unlimited substitution - effective
      - Express and Echo v Tanton newspaper deliverer, unrestricted right of substitution, arrange at own expense substitution - no contract of employment
    - - Ready mixed concrete ownership of cement lorry consistent with being independent business (minor equipment isn't)
      - Uber v Aslam drivers supplied own cars (minor tool)
      - • Szilagyi v Protectacoat unskilled construction worker made owner of specialist expensive equipment by contract (unsuccessful - still employee)