STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
PRINCIPLE
NIT-PICKING
Employment law can be a curious mixture of several things—the topical and the mundane, the ancient and the modern, the fascinating and the mind-numbingly tedious (no prize offered for nominations for the latter category). The mixture particularly notable this month is that between cases involving broad questions of principle and those involving nit-picking points of statutory interpretation. While we should not be too dismissive of the latter (after all, on one occasion many years ago a case went to the House of Lords under the merchant shipping legislation to decide whether the word “or” means “or”, or “and”, or “and/or”, with the whole validity of a prosecution depending on it—“the master or owner may be prosecuted”, and one already had been) the contrast remains an interesting one.
PRINCIPLE (1): BASIS OF A CONTRACT
The element of personal service has figured significantly in many of the recent cases on employment status, but the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) under Elias P in Ellis v M&P
