Nadine Quashie Case Summary

Better Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Nadine Quashie Case Study

    • 1236 Words
    • 5 Pages

    There also exists no mutuality of obligation to provide work to Daniel. He is also not paid by Ricardo but the customers directly pay him for the cocktails he provide. Therefore, Daniel was not a employee of Ricardo and just a free lancer as there existed no mutuality of obligation as in the Stringfellows case. He was not being paid by the bar but the customers paid him for his service. He also used his own alcohol and was not provided by any extra benefits, this concludes that there existed no contract of employment between Daniel and Ricardo Ristorante and…

    • 1236 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Ultratra Vires Case Study

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages

    6. ULTRA VIRES CONTRACTS A contract of company which is ultra vires, i.e., outside the objective clause as defined by memorandum of association is wholly void and is of no legal effect. The objection to an ultra vires contract is, not merely that the company ought not to have made it, but that it could not make it. The main issue is not as to the legality of the contract; but the issue is as to the competency and authority of the company to make it. An ultra vires contract which has the effect of void- ab- initio, cannot become intra vires by any reason of estoppels, lapse of time, ratification, acquiescence or delay.…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Another reason that made it an enforceable contract is, under the rule of Termination of Offer: Ahmad can revoke the contract at any time before an acceptance is made but it should be noted that the revocation must be directly/indirectly communicated. However Ahmad did not inform about the revocation of the contract with Naiker and had readily sold the item to Janice. Ahmad did not revoke the contract. He just assumed that Naiker was not interested in the piano as he did not receive any response from Naiker in…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Sexual Harassment Cases

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Plaintiff provided no evidence to show the two type of sexual harassment. Since the Plaintiff never informed or filed a complaint regarding the Defendant behavior and the defendant is not a supervisor the employer is not considered to be liable. The employer provided employees with the policy and step to report sex harassment. This policy was submitted into evidence. Farragher vs. Ellerth court case, if the employer did not know or have reason to know of the conduct, no liability should be imposed.…

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The leader could argue that there was no concerted activity for collective bargaining as a result of bargaining never came about and therefore the two workers in their personal capability merely walked out of the workplace. This is often an argument which will establish that provisions of Section 8 don't apply during this case. “Employers who discipline or discharge employees for participating in protected “concerted activities” violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act)” which the two employee in this case feel that they did not break any…

    • 709 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A parent company has no liability to cover up its subsidiary's debt because of those principle. S 46 states that if the share of subsidiary company is hold by other company more wholly owned shares. Tort Liability is obtain from the salomon's case that a group company is no liable from all debts subsidiary and generally is separate from holding company because it not under control directly from its company. Application : Both companies…

    • 1623 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Likeability and social proof are not present either because I have no connections and no similarities with the model. This GUESS advertisement also doesn’t use scarcity. There is no “Hurry before they’re gone!” screaming at me from the page and I’m not worried about losing anything. Furthermore, it also doesn’t offer reciprocity. Maybe it’s suggesting that by purchasing GUESS product the consumers will become just like the attractive model; however, that’s a poor way of “giving back”.…

    • 1567 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    “The court case Hartsock et al. v. Rich’s employees credit union et al. takes about the “Uniform Commercial Code, expressly provides that an action for conversion of an instrument may not be brought by a payee or indorse who did not receive delivery of the instrument either directly or through delivery to an agent or a co-payee.” It explains why a payee to whom a check was never delivered has no action for conversion” (www.law.justia.com). Decisions The decision was that “Rich’s” was not at fault for the check being cashed by someone else and not by Singer. According to the case, there was no evidence to prove that Rich’s and Wachovia acted in concert with each other or with any other person or entity to accomplish an unlawful end or a lawful end by unlawful means.…

    • 958 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Importance Of Duty Of Care

    • 4284 Words
    • 18 Pages

    Barry Cushway (2012). 2012-2013 The Employers Handbook. 9th ed. Londo n: Kogan Page. Chapters 11-17 Eurofound.…

    • 4284 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Siemon Code Of Ethics

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages

    An employee shall not attend an event as a representative of the Company which violates this rule. Alcohol consumption must be kept within the legal limit and must not interfere with an attendee’s ability to perform normal work activities. Employees cannot act or appear to be acting improperly in their relations with suppliers or customers or potential suppliers or customers. Gifts should never be solicited and may only be accepted if they have a nominal retail value. Any other gifts received must be reported to your Department Manager and turned over to Human Resources for donation to charity or other company sponsored event.…

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays