Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Others - Employee or self-employed and "sham" contract terms? [2008] EAT

A common intention to mislead need not be found before a term can be rejected as not properly representing the true position. It is for the tribunal to determine whether a written contract is a sham or reflects the true intentions and expectations of the parties. Further, a tribunal can be entitled to infer that a substitution clause does not genuinely reflect the rights and obligations of a worker if no real substitution has actually taken place. 

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.

Case Summary Tag: 

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