Quashie v Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd (Unfair Dismissal)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application under rule 3(10) following an Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing. The Appellant challenged an earlier decision by Employment Judge Isaacson, who had concluded after a detailed hearing that there was no mutuality of obligation between the parties, which is essential to establish an employment contract. The application was initially refused by HHJ Serota QC on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The current judge, Judge McMullen QC, reviewed the matter and found a particular issue that warranted allowing the appeal to proceed to a full hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was mutuality of obligation between the parties sufficient to establish an employment contract.
2. Whether the agreed rotas and minimum days of attendance constituted an enforceable obligation on both parties.
3. Whether the Respondent was obliged to allow the Appellant to work according to the agreed rota and to pay her accordingly.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant argued that the finding regarding rotas indicated the existence of an agreement imposing minimum days of attendance, specifically twice a month on Mondays and every Saturday.
• There was an obligation on the Respondent to adhere to the agreed rota, thereby creating mutual obligations: the Appellant to attend and the Respondent to provide work and payment.
• The Appellant contended that the Respondent’s obligation to allow her to work on rostered days was sufficient to establish the minimum employment relationship required.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the prior findings that the Appellant was under the Respondent's control and provided personal services but failed to establish mutuality of obligation. The judge focused on the evidence relating to the rotas, which showed an agreed pattern of work with minimum attendance requirements. The use of the word "agreement" by the Employment Judge indicated an obligation. The court found it reasonably arguable that the Respondent was bound to adhere to the agreed rota, thereby creating an obligation to allow the Appellant to work and to pay her accordingly. The unusual nature of the payment method and the involvement of a third party (House Mother) in setting rotas were acknowledged as complicating factors but did not preclude the existence of mutual obligations. As such, the court concluded there was sufficient merit for the appeal to proceed to a full hearing.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the appeal to proceed to a full hearing on the basis that there are reasonable prospects of success regarding the existence of mutual obligations related to the agreed rotas. The direct effect is that the Appellant’s claim will be reconsidered in light of this issue. No new precedent was established by this decision, and broader implications beyond the parties were not discussed.