1. The Employment Tribunal.
2. Nadine Quashie was not an employee and in any event did not have the requisite period of continuous employment.
3. Judge Mcmullen QC.
4. Nadine was the appellant and Stingfellow restaurant was the respondent.
5. The degree of control by the employer. The principle term of the agreement between the club and Nadine.
6. Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the claimant’s appeal. The judge concluded that she was an employee and had the necessary continuity of employment.
7. Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Elias, and Lord Pitchford.
8. 13 November, 2012.
9. Counsel were Messrs Davenport Lyons and Bindmans LLP. Solicitors were Mr. Thomas Linden QC and Mr John Hendy QC and Ms Catherine Rayner.
10. Stringfellow restaurant …show more content…
The COA decided for the appellant. The reasoning upheld from the fact that there might have a mutuality of obligation but they certainly would not compel the conclusion that it was a contract of employment. There was no contract of service as employer was under no obligation to pay the employee as Nadine negotiated her own payment from her clients. Taking economic risk may also constitute the contract invalid. The ET also entitled to conclude that there was no relationship between employer and employee.
19. In Cheng Yuen case, the club permitted to Cheng to offer himself as a caddie for individual golfers on certain terms. He did not receive any wage, sick pay, pension and other benefits rather he was paid by the golfers. He was not obliged to work for the club and had no obligation to the club to attend in order to act as caddie to the premises. The same position of Nadine is found in the Stringfellow case from the findings. Both facts of these cases are sufficiently similar. Therefore, the Cheng Yuen case is useful in deciding the latter …show more content…
The COA restored the ET’s decision that Nadine was not an employee as a result, tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear her claim of unfair dismissal. The judge held that mutuality of obligation was present partially which would not amount to contract of employment because employer was not bound to provide her work and to pay wages. Secondly, Nadine was paid by her customers and did not receive sick pay, holiday pay and other benefits. All these factors are consistent with the claimant being a self-employed. There was no umbrella contract, however the EAT was wrongful to find. Moreover, the ET concluded that there was no relationship between the employer and the employee which was wholly consistent and sustainable with its
2. Nadine Quashie was not an employee and in any event did not have the requisite period of continuous employment.
3. Judge Mcmullen QC.
4. Nadine was the appellant and Stingfellow restaurant was the respondent.
5. The degree of control by the employer. The principle term of the agreement between the club and Nadine.
6. Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the claimant’s appeal. The judge concluded that she was an employee and had the necessary continuity of employment.
7. Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Elias, and Lord Pitchford.
8. 13 November, 2012.
9. Counsel were Messrs Davenport Lyons and Bindmans LLP. Solicitors were Mr. Thomas Linden QC and Mr John Hendy QC and Ms Catherine Rayner.
10. Stringfellow restaurant …show more content…
The COA decided for the appellant. The reasoning upheld from the fact that there might have a mutuality of obligation but they certainly would not compel the conclusion that it was a contract of employment. There was no contract of service as employer was under no obligation to pay the employee as Nadine negotiated her own payment from her clients. Taking economic risk may also constitute the contract invalid. The ET also entitled to conclude that there was no relationship between employer and employee.
19. In Cheng Yuen case, the club permitted to Cheng to offer himself as a caddie for individual golfers on certain terms. He did not receive any wage, sick pay, pension and other benefits rather he was paid by the golfers. He was not obliged to work for the club and had no obligation to the club to attend in order to act as caddie to the premises. The same position of Nadine is found in the Stringfellow case from the findings. Both facts of these cases are sufficiently similar. Therefore, the Cheng Yuen case is useful in deciding the latter …show more content…
The COA restored the ET’s decision that Nadine was not an employee as a result, tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear her claim of unfair dismissal. The judge held that mutuality of obligation was present partially which would not amount to contract of employment because employer was not bound to provide her work and to pay wages. Secondly, Nadine was paid by her customers and did not receive sick pay, holiday pay and other benefits. All these factors are consistent with the claimant being a self-employed. There was no umbrella contract, however the EAT was wrongful to find. Moreover, the ET concluded that there was no relationship between the employer and the employee which was wholly consistent and sustainable with its