Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: July 24, 2009
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 16 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.
The Court of Appeal has recently given rulings that are of major interest to business shareholders who are also employees when a business becomes insolvent and the person then makes a claim under The National Insurance Fund for redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay. The case came before the Court of Appeal under the name Secretary for Sate for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Newfeld and Howe.
It was held there was no reason why a shareholder and director of a company could not also be an employee even if the shareholding gives total control of the company. In addition even if the person had made loans to the company or guaranteed obligations he/she could still be deemed to be an employee for the purposes of the legislation.
From previous case law it has been held that the employment contract cannot be a sham and must reflect what the employee actually does in reality. Equally it is prudent to have the contract in writing
