Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd
An agency worker was not an employee of the employment agency, because the agency did not exercise sufficient control over her, which is an essential element of a contract of employment.
Facts
Mrs Montgomery was registered with an employment agency, Johnson Underwood, which placed her with a client company, where she worked for over two years as a receptionist. The client company then asked the agency to end her placement, and she claimed unfair dismissal against the agency and the client. The tribunal held that she was an employee of the agency.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed the agency's appeal. Buckley J said that mutual obligations and control are the irreducible minimum required for a contract of employment, and that the agency had no real control over Mrs Montgomery's work, which was directed by the client. The tribunal had not considered whether there was sufficient control, and there was not. Mrs Montgomery was therefore not an employee of the agency. The question whether an agency worker is employed by the end user was later considered in James v Greenwich London Borough Council.
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
- James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] ICR 1006
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.
