Khan v Checkers Cars Ltd - No "mutuality of obligation" so a Gatwick cab-driver was not an "employee" for unfair dismissal purposes [2005] EAT

An interesting thing about this case is that both sides agreed that Mr Khan (a cab-driver at Gatwick) was a "worker". Checkers Cars argued that he was not an "employee" as there was no "mutuality of obligation" (and therefore his unfair dismissal claim should be struck out). Checkers won. The interest is that the EAT suggests a nonsense in the arguments, suggesting that there has to be "mutuality of obligation" for a person to be either a "worker" or an "employee" for purposes of the Employment Rights Act (see para 28 of the judgment).

The full content of this page is available to subscribers only. Please purchase a subscription if you feel this content will be of use to you.

Login or subscribe (includes subscription information) to access the full content of this page.