Employment

The employment tribunal found that, when the appellant was providing her services through a limited company for the purpose of selling Shiseido cosmetic products in a duty free outlet managed by the respondent, she was not an employee of the respondent for the purposes of s 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the existence of an employment relationship did not turn on whether the parties had entered into a formal contract, which would be recognised in domestic law as having constituted employment, but on whether it met the criteria which had been laid down by European law. Applying those criteria, the appellant was not an employee of the respondent.