Well, its good news-ish, but not sure that it is likely to make a huge deal of difference to the average IT contractor. The courts did accept that having worked for a client for a long time (5 years) didn't mean that a contract of employment existed. Restating the importance of mutuality of obligation is also welcome.
But, they retained the concept of implied contracts (i.e. that what the decision on whether an employment relationship exists should be assessed by the way that work is performed, rather than what's written in the formal contract). Also, they seemed to place a heavy (undue?) emphasis on exercise of the right of substitution as a way of distinguishing between contracts for services and contracts of service. For most contractors their specialist skills and knowledge mean that providing a substitute to cover for sickness/holidays is rarely an option.
Feels like it'll be of more use to cleaners than contractors to be honest....
Leave a comment: