Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) v Wright [2004] ICR 1126
Plaintiff entered a ‘subcontract’ agreement with Defendant to work on a 6-month project. He was paid weekly, supplied none of his own tools, with tax being deducted. There was a clause allowing him ‘to employ his own operatives and also the supply of sufficient labour to maintain the rate of progress the company might stipulate.’
CA held that he was a worker for purposes of working time regs (see above).
Pill LJ
Policy considerations and the ‘actual facts’ do NOT determine whether a person comes within the definition of worker: This is simply a matter of statutory construction.
The fact that Plaintiff actually did the work personally does not mean that there was a contractual obligation to do so (it simply provides evidence sometimes).
Here there was an obligation on Plaintiff to do the work personally: The wide substitution clause was simply there because the contract was standard-term and used for subcontracting businesses, as well as individuals like Plaintiff.
Holman J
He criticised the EAT (lower court) for looking at what actually happened rather than what the contract said.
He maintained that considering what happened in fact was ‘irrelevant’ and ‘inadmissible’.
Similar cases
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.