W4 + W5 - Personal Scope

Challenge of employment status

Employees have statutory protections - contractors/workers have less rights / no clear formula for distinguishing employment relationship from other kinds of contract

ERA 1996 s230 + link to common law

Employment Rights Act 1996 / s230(1) - employee def (entered contract of employment) / s230(2) - defines contract of employment / s230(3) - worker who’s under a contract for services, not employment / legislation vague = reliance on common law

3 tests for finding employment - control test

Control test - employer has control over employee actions, salary, equipment / difficult for skilled professionals (e.g. surgeons who don’t need supervision)

3 tests for finding employment - Organisation test

Organisation test - is the worker’s job a core part of the business, integrated into the compnay

3 tests for finding employment - Business/economic reality test

Business reality test - modern method, look at daily realities of working relationship, more holistic

Bogus and sham contracts - Pimlico Plumbers v Smith

Pimlico Plumbers v Smith - bogus independent contract / ways to assess for a sham contract: multi-factor test, construction of the contract (PP v S exposed contradictory terms) / Pimlico - substation cl

Bogus and sham contracts - Autoclenz v Belcher

Autoclenz v Belcher / car valets worked for Autoclenz - A claimed they were independent contractors / SC ruled in B’s favour - despite contract terms, reality = employees / courts now examine actual working reality, against ‘sham’ contracts

Dependent contractor

Worker, not full employee - but economically dependent as they work almost exclusively for an employer (just handle their own taxes/businesses)

Dependent contractor - O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte

O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte / dependent contractors don’t get employee perks / raised fairness questions

O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte - in depth

O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte / waiters vulnerable to exploitative treatment, but still independent contractors / shows economic dependence not the determinative factor for fairness / case excluded zero-hour/part-time workers

Dependent contractor - James v Redcats

James v Redcats - workers have the right to find alternative work if not given hours

Comparison to EU law

In EU - worker more extensive, encompasses all / more people afforded rights / EU Directive 2008 on Agency Workers - qualify for protections after 12 weeks with one employer

EA 2010 s83

Equality Act 2010 s83(2) - drops the exclusion of worker / distinction still remains, but not for discrimination

Jivraj v Hashwani - controversial decision

Jivraj v Hashwani - Question if subordination is needed for contracts personally to do work / SC inserted requirement into s83(2) of EA 2010 / so law on discrimination more broadly applied

National Minimum Wage Act

NMWA 1998 - includes agency workers and home-workers = broad application

Reform proposals - justifications

Dependent contractors also vulnerable to misuse of managerial power / proposals to have a single doctrine on employment

Taylor Review - quote + overview

‘Part of the uncertainty surrounding the personal scope of employment protection law stems from the paucity of statutory guidance’ / proposed 3-tier system (employee, worker, genuinely self-employed)

Uber v Aslam - case facts

Uber v Aslam / Aslam wanted uber drivers to be considered statutory workers, rather than independent contractors

Uber v Aslam - Court ruling

Uber v Aslam / SC ruled uber drivers were workers - entitled to basic statutory protections / applied Autoclenz substance over form - uber exercised control over drives, fares and routes

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions - facts

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions / RMC hired a delivery driver (independent contractor)

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions - Ruling

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions / court ruled in RMC’s favour / applied Autoclenz - driver ran his own business, so independent contractors / 3 part test: provision of work and skill, degree of control, consistency of terms

Academic - Hepple - overview

Traditional employment law no longer reflects modern reality / fundamental question for reform - current law too focused on contracts + too incremental

Academic - Collins - overview

Businesses increasingly outsourcing (vertical disintegration) - undermines employment protections / traditional employment law must develop to reflect economic dependence, not contracts

ERA 1996 - limb b workers

Employment Rights Act 1996 / s230(3b) - defined limb b workers

Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co - facts

Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co / BVW equity partner at Clyde & Co - reported bribery / then suspended and expelled from partnership

Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co - Ruling

Court ruled in Bates van Winkelhof’s favour - senior status doesn’t strip someone from worker protections / whistleblowing > employee/worker distinction

Deliveroo case 2023

Deliveroo case / wanted statutory protections for Deliveroo drivers / SC rejected claim - riders could substitute

Jivraj v Hashwani

Jivraj v Hashwani / SC ruled arbitrators are independent adjudicators, anti-discrimination employment laws don’t restrict parties from specifying criteria

James v Greenwich - case facts

James v Greenwich / J worked as an agency worker for Greenwich borough for 3-4 years - no direct contact with the Council / took sick leave and was replaced

James v Greenwich - Ruling + contrast

James v Greenwich / Court ruled in Greenwich’s favour - tripartite reality, long duration doesn’t affect 3P workers / contrasted Dacas v Brook Street where a passage of time could imply a contract

Academic - Kathy Stone - quote

Kathy Stone: ‘all of the workers are becoming atypical’ (so law must accommodate to changes)

Recent news - for an essay

Open consultation October 2026 in government - raising idea for single status workers