Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: November 2, 2009
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 12 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
In the recent case (Autoclenz v Belcher) the question of the status of employee/worker/self employed was under review.
The case highlighted a number of issues.
a) The employees argued there was a contract term which gave no obligation for the valeters to turn up to work. However, in practice they were required to notify the company if they were not going to turn up for work.
b) A clause allowing substitution had never been exercised in practice and therefore again did not reflect the time agreement.
These cases are of importance when employers are seeking to argue no employment rights when, in fact, the worker is in truth considered an employee and therefore has such rights.