In Pimlico Plumbers and another v Smith [2018] UKSC 29 (13 June 2018) the Supreme Court held that although Mr Smith was not an employee he was a worker. This gave him some protection for the purposes of employment legislation but he was self-employed for tax purposes.
From 2005 to 2011 Mr Smith a plumbing and heating engineer had worked for Pimlico a substantial plumbing business. Mr Smith had issued proceedings against Pimlico alleging that he was an employee under a contract of service within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 s 230(1) and that he had been dismissed unfairly. He also contended that he had been a worker within the meaning of s 230(3).
The court first observed that ‘it is conceptually legitimate as well as convenient’ to treat the three decisions of the lower courts...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Pimlico Plumbers and another v Smith [2018] UKSC 29 (13 June 2018) the Supreme Court held that although Mr Smith was not an employee he was a worker. This gave him some protection for the purposes of employment legislation but he was self-employed for tax purposes.
From 2005 to 2011 Mr Smith a plumbing and heating engineer had worked for Pimlico a substantial plumbing business. Mr Smith had issued proceedings against Pimlico alleging that he was an employee under a contract of service within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 s 230(1) and that he had been dismissed unfairly. He also contended that he had been a worker within the meaning of s 230(3).
The court first observed that ‘it is conceptually legitimate as well as convenient’ to treat the three decisions of the lower courts...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
