header-logo header-logo

17 April 2008
Issue: 7317 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Employment Law

James v London Borough of Greenwich [2008] EWCA Civ 35, [2008] All ER (D) 54 (Feb)

The question of whether or not an “agency worker” is an employee of an end user must be decided in accordance with common law principles of
implied contract and, in some very extreme cases, by exposing sham arrangements.

It is wrong to regard all “agency workers” as self-employed temporary workers outside the protection of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996); however, recent case law does not entitle all “agency workers” to argue successfully that they should all be treated as employees in disguise.

There is a wide spectrum of factual situations. Labels are not a substitute for legal analysis of the evidence. In many cases agency workers will fall outside the scope of the protection of ERA 1996 because neither the workers nor the end users were in any kind of express contractual relationship with each other and it is not necessary to imply one to explain the work undertaken by the worker for the end user.

Issue: 7317 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll