Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Agency worker not an employee, rules Court of Appeal"
The Labour government always maintained that contractors being an employee for unfair dismissal cases was different to being an employee for IR35. Different rules. That was part of the government's charm.
And recognising that, they gave IR35 caught contractors that 5% allowance to compensate...
bin this one... I was going to put it into Legal but thought it more of general interest given that the idiot was trying to sue for unfair dismissal, hardly a contractor mindset!
There has already been a case where a contractor (fearing an IR35 investigation coming from an ongoing PAYE enquiry), took his then 'employer' to an unfair dismissal tribunal. He lost. Strangely, his PAYE enquiry ended without turning into a full blown IR35 enquiry.
I'm pretty surprised that this hasn't been used more often. Certainly works as a defence. There are loads of cases of unfair dismissal by alledged contract staff where you would think the 'employee' would win, but they rarely do. Employment tribunals tend to take the 'contract staff, on contracts, are NOT employees' view even if they look like it in every other sense. Strange how they can use the same facts but get the opposite conclusion in IR35 cases.
The Labour government always maintained that contractors being an employee for unfair dismissal cases was different to being an employee for IR35. Different rules. That was part of the government's charm.
There has already been a case where a contractor (fearing an IR35 investigation coming from an ongoing PAYE enquiry), took his then 'employer' to an unfair dismissal tribunal. He lost. Strangely, his PAYE enquiry ended without turning into a full blown IR35 enquiry.
I'm pretty surprised that this hasn't been used more often. Certainly works as a defence. There are loads of cases of unfair dismissal by alledged contract staff where you would think the 'employee' would win, but they rarely do. Employment tribunals tend to take the 'contract staff, on contracts, are NOT employees' view even if they look like it in every other sense. Strange how they can use the same facts but get the opposite conclusion in IR35 cases.
bin this one... I was going to put it into Legal but thought it more of general interest given that the idiot was trying to sue for unfair dismissal, hardly a contractor mindset!
Shall we use General or Legal? I'm happy for mods to merge mine into yours if people want.
bin this one... I was going to put it into Legal but thought it more of general interest given that the idiot was trying to sue for unfair dismissal, hardly a contractor mindset!
There was no need to imply a direct contract between an agency worker and an employer just because the worker's conditions did not exactly match those described in the agency agreement, the Court of Appeal has said.
The fact that the worker was fully integrated into the employer's business and asked permission to take holidays does not necessarily mean that he was an employee, the Court has found.
Leave a comment: