The claim was first heard in the Employment Tribunal (ET).
2. The court of first instance (ET) initially held that Ms Quashie was not an employee as there was no relevant mutuality of obligation, meaning there was no contract and that there are factors consistent with the Claimant (Ms Quashie) being self employed.
3. The judge sitting in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was His Honour Judge McMullen QC (sitting alone).
4. In the EAT the appellant was Ms Nadine Quashie and the Respondent was Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd.
5. The EAT considered it to be relative that Nadine Quashie attended meetings on Thursday’s because it was found that the regular performance of work and/or by the judge's findings on the claimant's expectation of work,
…show more content…
The Court of Appeal did agree with the ET Analysis regarding mutuality of obligations and that the ET was entitled to state that there wasn’t a relationship of employee and employer established by this arrangement. Mr Linden’ submission was accepted, in that the EAT ‘‘was in fact using the concept of mutuality of obligation in two divergent ways’’ . He submitted that the concept is used in such a way that The Tribunal was concentrating on the nature of the obligations and concluded that there wasn’t mutual obligations of a sort which fixed the contract into the employment capacity.
14. The Tribunal extracted, from the Ready Mixed Concrete case, three elements, which must be established if the relationship is to establish a contract of employment, one of these elements was a requirement in there being a mutuality of obligation between the employee and the
…show more content…
The material facts in the Court of Appeal decision included that the employer was not under any obligation to pay the dancer. The key evidence for that was that she discussed her own fees with the clients, took the risk that on any night she would potentially earn nothing and receive back from the employer only money received from clients, by cash or ‘Heavenly Money’ after deductions. Also Ms Quashie paid the the club in order to perform at their venues. In addition, Stringfellow was not obliged to provide work or pay her for any work done. If she was on a rota the club would provide her a facility for dancing that is her earnings came from the clients. In return she had to comply with specific rules. A few of those rules were required to enable Stringfellow to maintain their licences. Also with regards to rules, Ms Quashie claimed she never received a formal contract, however she received a handbook, which was found to be sufficient as it contained the house rules. Therefore, she was bound by the terms of the contract, as the contract was performed in accordance with those specific terms.
16. The grounds of appeal in the Court of Appeal were that there was a misreading of the EAT’ decision. It was held that the conclusion of the employer not being under obligation to pay any remuneration to the claimant for the work she did was correct. It was held that the EAT was not permitted to interfere with that finding. The lack of such obligation was not consistent with the notion
The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement.
What uncompensated work did the plaintiff claim she performed? What should the district court have done with the statement of another employee that the plaintiff did not engage in work prior to her official start time?
Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
It was found in the primary court that Helen was not properly appointed as a director of LWC (Beck v L W Furniture Consolidated (Aust) Pty Limited (2011) NSWSC 235). This was not disputed in the Court of Appeal or the High Court (Weinstock, 48). In reaching this decision, Barrett J considered multiple factors, including Amiram’s status an...
If the partnership was found to exist - the application of the three elements of s5 of the Partnership Act 1958 (Vic), two parties carrying on a business in common with a view to profit, there would be joint liability between the two parties of Williams and Goudberg. The main discussion point in this case was whether the “carrying on a business” element was in existence to establish a partnership. Relevant law relied on by the judge(s) in making their decision According to the Partnership Act 1958 (Vic) s5, the judge Maxwell P analysed whether Goudberg and Williams was in a partnership at the period when Williams had a contract with Herniman. S5 includes three elements that need to be satisfied in order for partnership to exist: carrying on business, in common and with a view of profit.
In order for John to file a discrimination complaint against his employer, he is required to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint counselor or representative of the company. Once the charge has been filed, an investigation is made, or the charge maybe selected to an EEOC program and maybe dismissed. In this case, John is given a certain number of days to file a lawsuit on his behalf. This process would have to go through several lengthy stages such as the EEOC administrative process. If gone to trial it must go through filing of a summons, response and answer, discovery process, enlisting of experts, pre-trial, actual trial and a possible appeal.
This legal matter involves a dispute between Lisa Harvey, an employee, and her employer, Gibraltar Mines Ltd. Both Ms. Harvey and her husband were affiliated with the union and employed by Gibraltar Mines. Ms. Harvey proposed adjustments to her and her husband's work schedule due to familial obligations arising from her becoming a mother. These proposals were not considered by the employee, leading her to file a discrimination complaint based on family, marital, and gender status.
At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
During the court, P4P issued the Decision Letter (No.660/48/17-10/IX/PHK/4-1999) that the defendant was not allowed to dismiss their employees. The reason was because there was not agreement between the defendant and the 153 employees. The defendant refused that Decision Letter because that would cause the defendant should give the job to the employees back and should pay their wage.
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...
The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2007 was set up to give clear guidelines on how an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee may be contested by an independent body. The main purpose of this Act is to shield employees from unfair dismissals. It also provides for an adjudication system and a redress system to those employees whose dismissals have been found to be unfair.
For many years there have been questions circling weather the decision held by the house of Lords in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC presents the return to Pre-Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 methods applied by the courts in determining and deciding the existence of duty of care in negligence. In this assignment I will investigate cases and the methods of Pre-Donoghue v Stevenson in setting out the duty of care along with the methods set, fixed and established in Donoghue v
1. The City and the Stars by Arthur Clarke sets place a billion years in the future. The story sets place in the city of Diaspar, the last habitable city on Earth. This utopian city is enclosed from the outside world, and Diaspar is almost completely run by a central computer that regulates life in Diaspar.