Skip to content
Solved
SearchBrowse
Sign in

Contents

Official guidance
Employment Status Manual

ESM7000 · Case Law

  • ESM7006 · List of Abbreviations
  • ESM7007 · Introduction - General
  • ESM7008 · Introduction - Preliminary Matters
  • ESM7009 · Introduction - Use of Case Law in Employment Status Work
  • ESM7010 · Brief History
  • ESM7020 · Davies v Braithwaite
  • ESM7025 · Morren v Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council
  • ESM7030 · Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
  • ESM7040 · Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security
  • ESM7055 · Fall v Hitchen
  • ESM7060 · Airfix Footwear Ltd v Cope
  • ESM7070 · Massey v Crown Life Insurance Company
  • ESM7080 · Edwards v Clinch
  • ESM7090 · Narich Pty. Limited v The Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax
  • ESM7100 · O'Kelly and Others v Trusthouse Forte plc
  • ESM7110 · Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner and Taverna
  • ESM7120 · Sidey v Phillips
  • ESM7130 · Walls v Sinnett
  • ESM7140 · Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung
  • ESM7150 · Andrews v King
  • ESM7160 · Hall v Lorimer
  • ESM7165 · Lane v The Shire Roofing Company (Oxford) Ltd
  • ESM7170 · Barnett v Brabyn
  • ESM7180 · Secretary of State for Employment v McMeechan
  • ESM7190 · Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority
  • ESM7200 · Carmichael & Another v National Power plc
  • ESM7210 · Express and Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton
  • ESM7220 · (1) MacFarlane & (2) Skivington v Glasgow City Council
  • ESM7230 · St John’s College School, Cambridge v Secretary of State for Social Security
  • ESM7240 · Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd
  • ESM7250 · Todd & Others v Adams & Another
  • ESM7260 · Synaptek Ltd v Young
  • ESM7270 · Usetech Ltd v Young
  • ESM7280 · Future Online Ltd v Foulds
  • ESM7290 · Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd v HMRC Commissioners
  • ESM7300 · HMRC Commissioners v Larkstar Data Ltd
  • ESM7310 · Autoclenz Ltd and Belcher & Ors
  • ESM7315 · The Commissioners For HMRC and Talentcore Limited (t/a) Team Spirits
  • ESM7320 · Christa Ackroyd Media Limited v Revenue & Customs
  • ESM7325 · Northern Lights Solutions Ltd v Revenue & Customs
  • ESM7330 · Kickabout Productions Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
  • ESM7335 · The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Atholl House Productions Ltd
  • ESM7340 · Red, White and Green Limited V Revenue and Customs
  • ESM7005 · Table of Cases (in alphabetical order)
  1. Case Law: contents
  2. Case Law: Introduction - Preliminary Matters

ESM7008 | Case Law: Introduction - Preliminary Matters

From HM Revenue & Customs · Employment Status Manual

In employment status work the initial point at issue will usually be whether an engagement is made under a contract of service or a contract for services. Where there is a dispute it will be the responsibility of the initial tribunal e.g. Employment Tribunal, First Tier Tribunal, to determine the facts based upon the evidence presented to it. Hence the importance of establishing all the facts of a case and of ensuring that they are brought out at that tribunal.

It is a well-established legal principle that higher courts can only overturn the decision of a lower court where the lower court has erred in law or has reached a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal, properly instructed, could reach.

It is also an established principle that the interpretation of a written document is a question of law. But, in the employment field, it is often the case that the parties do not intend written documents to be the sole record of their agreement. Where the intention of the parties is that the terms of an engagement are to be gathered from written documents, oral exchanges and conduct, this will be a question of fact. The judgment of Lord Hoffman in the case of Carmichael and Another v National power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042 provides a useful summary of the law in this area.

The case of Express and Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton [1999] IRLR 367 is a good illustration of a higher court overturning a decision of a lower court because of its failure to apply established legal principles.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms