Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher · [2011] UKSC 41
UK Supreme Court · 27 July 2011
Twenty car valeters signed documents describing them as self-employed. Some clauses suggested they could send another person to do their work or decline an assignment. The dispute concerned minimum wage and paid holiday. The signed description gave the tribunal somewhere to start. It did not tell the tribunal what happened when a valeter was expected on site.
What had the parties actually agreed?
The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal’s finding that the valeters worked under contracts of employment. The tribunal could consider the written terms together with the conduct and expectations of the people involved. It was entitled to find that the substitution and absence-of-obligation clauses did not reflect the actual agreement.
The relative bargaining power of the parties mattered. An individual presented with standard terms may have little say over their wording. Equally, a genuine right to provide a substitute can matter even if nobody has used it. The enquiry is into the right that really existed. Disliking a term, by itself, does not establish that it was unreal.
Recovering the detail of one assignment
Compare the relevant contract version with a rota or assignment message. Who selected the individual? What happened when they could not attend? Could they choose and pay a replacement, and what approval was needed? A contemporary message from a supervisor can answer a question the standard contract leaves open. Keep copies you are entitled to retain and separate employment-rights questions from any tax-status issue.
Read the judgment in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
Related reading · How the Supreme Court examined control in Uber
