header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 March 2007 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7265 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 23 March 2007

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Worker v home worker, Lapsed warnings, TUPE transfers

We are seeing a series of important decisions from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) addressing key points in modern employment law. Much emphasis is on the statutory procedures, as seen in previous briefings, but this month the focus is on three decisions of President Elias on fundamental issues of longer-standing law.

THE WORKER DEFINITION

James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] UKEAT 475/06, [2007] All ER (D) 270 (Feb) is a rare example of the worker definition having to be considered in the context of a national minimum wage (NMW) claim—as opposed to the more usual context of working time, particularly holiday pay. While the statutory definition is the same, the NMW provenance did have one specific effect towards the end of the judgment, given by Elias P sitting alone.
The question was whether a parcel courier delivering for the respondent was a ‘worker’ or alternatively a ‘home worker’, under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (NMWA 1998),
s 35, for the purpose

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll