A lap dancer engaged by Stringfellows nightclub was axed in December 2008 and she claimed unfair dismissal based on her employment status. Significantly, the status of Nadine Quashie, 29, was considered to hinge on the nature of the contractual obligations – whether there was a mutuality of obligation - “MOO”.
This employment law judgement may not be of considerable importance in the IR35 arena, writes Chris Leslie, a former head of investigations for Revenue & Customs and the founder of status advisory Tax Networks Ltd. However I think it carries a very clear statement as to the classification of a worker’s employment status for tax purposes, so contractors should take heed.
It took three hearings, culminating in the latest one - the Court of Appeal verdict handed down by three Lord Justices.
Background
For illustration, if ‘I’ was obliged to turn up for work and do that work for a consideration, and, my engager was obliged to provide me with that work and pay me as part of a work-wage bargain, in its most basic form I believe that kind of situation points to MOO.
Also, whether exercised or not, if my engager had in some fashion a right of control over of what I did, where I did it, when and how I did the work, this would be an indication of a master-servant relationship.
Thirdly, if I was personally required to do the work - could not arrange and personally pay for a replacement - that would be another indication of an employment contract of service.
Read more here
No comments.