Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
- The applicant was represented by Ms B Smyth of McGrady Collins Solicitors.
- The respondent was represented by Mr P Henry, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Curran and King Solicitors.
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
McGeown v. Savage
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The originating application concerned whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal under Article 3 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, specifically regarding the definition of "employee". The Applicant and the Respondent, who are related, engaged in a working arrangement beginning between November 2002 and January 2003. The Respondent, a farmer expanding a fertiliser spreading business, paid the Applicant based on hours claimed, with no queries raised about the hours worked. The Respondent provided equipment and occasionally employed other workers. The Applicant suffered a workplace accident in March 2004, took an agreed absence, and was later informed by the Respondent that no work was available due to temporary replacement. The Applicant controlled his work hours and was free to work for others. There was no written agreement between the parties. The central factual dispute was whether the Applicant was employed under a contract of service or a contract for services.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal under the definition of "employee" in Article 3 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
- Whether the Applicant was an employee under a contract of service or an independent contractor under a contract for services.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 1 All ER 433 |
Establishing criteria for determining employment status (contract of service vs. contract for services) |
The tribunal considered this case but found it of limited assistance due to the absence of a written agreement; it nonetheless guided the analysis of employment status. |
| O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] IRLR 369 |
Clarification of employment status and rights under employment law |
The tribunal took this precedent into account in assessing the nature of the working relationship, particularly regarding control and mutuality of obligation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The tribunal evaluated the oral evidence and documentation presented, noting inconsistencies and the absence of key documents claimed by both parties. It found the Respondent's evidence more consistent. The tribunal examined the nature of the working relationship, including control over work hours, payment method, provision of equipment, and the Applicant's ability to work for others. The tribunal also considered the lack of a written contract and the parties' conduct, including the Applicant's acceptance of his status and lack of challenge until after February 2004. Applying the principles from Article 3 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and relevant case law, the tribunal concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant was not an employee within the statutory definition, but rather engaged under a contract for services. Consequently, the tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
Holding and Implications
The tribunal's final decision was to DISMISS the Applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction because the Applicant was not an employee under the relevant statutory definition.
This decision directly affects the parties by ending the Applicant's claim at the tribunal level. The opinion does not establish any new legal precedent beyond applying established tests for employment status.
Click here to read the full judgment