James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd
In deciding whether a person is a worker, the question is whether the dominant purpose of the contract is the personal performance of work, or whether the person is in business on his own account.
Facts
Ms James delivered parcels from her home for Redcats, a home shopping company, as a self employed courier. She was paid per parcel and could arrange for someone else to deliver the parcels, provided she paid them. She claimed the national minimum wage. The tribunal held that she was not a worker, because she was self employed, and she appealed.
Legal principle
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had applied the wrong approach. Elias P said that the question in deciding whether a person is a worker is whether the essence of the relationship, its dominant purpose, is the personal performance of work, or whether the person is carrying on a business undertaking in which the other party is a client or customer. The tribunal had wrongly focused on whether Ms James was self employed, rather than on the dominant purpose of the contract, and its decision could not stand. The approach has been widely cited in later cases.
Related cases on employment status
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [2011] ICR 1157
- 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
- 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.
