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 of Moore V President of the Methodist Conference, it was argued as to what their employment status was. The Respondent had to date treated them as a non employee, claiming that as there was no intention to contractually create a legally binding working relationship with God, Ministers were not employees and thus not entitled to the rights employees are afforded, such as unfair dismissal rights.
This argument had been seen previously in the Court of Appeal case of, President of the Methodist Conference v Parfitt which the Respondent argued and in the first instance won. The Claimant appealed the Tribunals decision claiming that she was an employee due to the contract of service that she was providing.
The Claimants appeal was successful, and the Appeal Tribunal followed the ruling in the House of Lords case, Percy V Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland which indicated that the spiritual relationship was not the primary factor to be considered here. She was subject to control by the Respondent, paid remuneration from the Respondent and was subject to remain in their post for a set number of years. It was thus held that under the usual control tests that the Claimant was in fact an Employee and able to pursue her claim of unfair dismissal against the Respondent.