Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
In employment cases, the court can disregard written terms that do not reflect the true agreement between the parties, taking account of the relative bargaining power of the parties.
Facts
Mr Belcher and other car valeters worked for Autoclenz, cleaning cars at sites run by its customers. Their written contracts described them as self employed subcontractors, and included clauses saying that they were not obliged to provide services and could send a substitute to do the work. In practice, they worked under Autoclenz's direction, were expected to turn up for work, and never sent substitutes. They claimed the national minimum wage and holiday pay as workers.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that they were employees and workers. Lord Clarke said that in employment cases, unlike ordinary commercial contracts, the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the written terms truly represent what was agreed. The true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. The tribunal had been entitled to find that the clauses about substitution and the lack of obligation did not reflect the true agreement, so they could be disregarded.
Related cases on employment status
- Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 973
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP [2014] UKSC 32, [2014] 1 WLR 2047
- Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042
- Express and Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton [1999] ICR 693
- Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee [2023] UKSC 43
- James v Greenwich London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 35, [2008] ICR 545
- James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] ICR 1006
- Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
