Pimlico Plumbers v Smith [2017] EWCA Civ 51

Further confirmation from the Court of Appeal that even where someone considers himself to be self-employed and signs a contract agreeing that he is “in business on his own account”, although he could not be regarded as an employee, he may still be a ‘worker’ and so have entitlements such as a right to holiday pay, a right to reasonable adjustments, and a right not to his wages docked unlawfully. 

It was found that the individual ‘job swapping’ which went on between Mr Smith and his colleagues did not amount to a right to substitute the provider of the service, which is a key feature of self-employment, but rather was akin to ‘shift swapping’ in a normal employment environment.  Moreover, in spite of an express clause in the contract that there was neither an obligation upon the Respondent to provide work nor one for Mr Smith to work, another typical marker of self-employment, the reality of the situation was that the business only made sense if work was provided and Mr Smith was generally willing and able to do it. 

By |2017-04-27T12:51:15+00:00April 26th, 2017|News|Comments Off on Pimlico Plumbers v Smith [2017] EWCA Civ 51
This website uses cookies and third party services. Ok