lack of mutuality of obligation before and after the completion of assignments does not mean that a person must be a casual worker and cannot in law be an employee while working on an assignment. In this case the original tribunal had been correct to find that the person concerned (a teacher who worked on separate assignements as a "home tutor") was an employee.

editor's note:-
there was no appeal against the original tribunal's conclusion that if the teacher concerned was an employee then her employment was continuous employment on the basis that gaps between assignments were "on account of temporary cessation of work" and that therefore, under the provisions of Employment Rights Act 1996 s.212(3)(b), they counted in computing the period of employment.

For relevant general notes see Employee/casual and home workers and/or Continuous employment/time off work not breaking continuity/absence on account of temporary cessation of work .