Employee or Self-Employed?

This assignment presents two case studies, one involving Isabelle working at a cafeteria and the other involving Daniel as a freelance cocktail maker. Students must analyze the specific details of each scenario and apply relevant legal factors to determine whether Isabelle and Daniel qualify as employees or self-employed individuals. The analysis should consider elements such as control exerted by the employer, financial risk borne by the worker, and the presence of an employment contract.

English Reasoning
1

Table of Contents
Question and answer........................................................................................................................3
1.)............................................................................................................................................3
Part B...............................................................................................................................................3
References........................................................................................................................................9
2

Question and answer
1.).
A key is a legal choice which is itself a rule. English law which depends on the doctrine
called precedent, the essential rule on which tenet of point of reference is grounded is recognised
as stare decisis (that is standing by the previous decision) so that decision can make (Komárek,
2013). At the time when the court has decided a law in a specific case. At that point it ought to
be connected in all the future cases which contains a similar material and realities. For instance,
in the case of Donoghue V Stevenson, the House of lord decided that manufactured own the duty
of maintenance for final customer of the products. In a judicial precedent is the process in which
courts follow all the before obvious cases in which fact are of adequate likeness. Further in ratio
Decudendi and obiter dictum, there are conclusion or judgment of a justice that reduction in
these two parts (Komárek, 2013).
Stare decisis is one of the legal aspect under which judges are grateful for respecting the
precendent which are created on the basis of prior decisions. According to the first principle
whatever decision are made by the high court or by the one court in its previous case is known as
the binding precedent for the court and it is required to follow it strictly. Further court cannot
overturn its own precendent till the they do not have strong reason for doing it and it must be
guided by the inferior courts. Hence, the second principle is advisory as because in relation to
this that persuasive precedent is advisory and ot can be ignored occasionally under some
circumstance. Apart from this lower court do not have power to go against the binding precedent
still at the time when lower court think that percent is unjust. Therefore lower court can only
express their view in front of the high court and enactment will reform the rule in questions.
Along with this judges can received different kinds of persuasive for reaching to the decision in
the case. The case which is decided by the more than one judge panel can results in split of
decisions.
Ration Decidendi: In this, is known is the circumstance in which the legal choice of law in
created at the time when the justice brings the decision after outlining the fact which is identified
to be proven on the basis of evidence (Pether, 2015). Further, this laws are applied to those fact
which arrives at the decision for which reason was given. On the other side in Obiter dictum, the
3

judge will go to the speculate related to the decision made by him that is based on the facts or
case is different.
The ratio Decidendi is one of the compulsory part of a legal decision, However, obiter
dictum is not the binding part in the cases which are presented later on because they doesn’t
matter in the issues in the original cases (Callander and Clark, 2017). An obiter dictum is
opposite to the compulsory in further cases. In such cases difficulty take place at the time when
judge provide reason for making a decision and he always not state the reason of ratio Decidendi
is and further it can also provoke the proportion of the cases.
Hence the statement is valid that is the doctrine of precedent reflects that court of appeal is
bound by the previous decision for the similar case.
Part B
1.
The claim was heard at the employment tribunal.
2
At the 1st instance the court decided that Ms Quashie was not a worker. Along with this she was
not relevant mutuality of responsibility was present
3
HHJ McMullen QC was the judge who was present in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and he
was alone who heard the case and make conclusion.
4.
The appellant was Ms Nadine Quashie in the Service Appeal Court and the respondent was
Stringfellow Restaurants.
5.
The Employment Request Law court consider it to be appropriate because EAT concluded that
there were an ongoing duty and responsibility in existence, and in the holes, there was no
Schedule in place specifically that at the same time there is continuous relationship. Nadine was
grateful to demonstration up the meeting at every week Thursday there was risk if she didn’t
move from there. Therefore, umbrella contract was created in between them
6.
The Schedule which is assumed and what the time when chance if work is provided to her by the
stringfellows, on the basis of this decision was made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. HH
4

Judge McMullen QC accepted the conclusion of Mr Hendy and he identified that Tribunal made
an error at the time when they detained that there was no agreement of service
7.
the stringfellows case was gotten by Master Justice Elias, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice
Pitchford who are the judges in the Court of Appeal
8
The date was On 21st December 2012 at which the case was gotten in the Court of Appeal.
9
Mr Thomas Linden QC and instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons were the council and
lawyers in the Court of law of Request who are , representing the plaintiff. An persons who are
representing the respondents are Ms Catherine Rayner and Mr John Hendy QC, instructed by
Bindmans LLP
10.
To restore the original tribunal conclusion and no contract of service was taken place they want
to prove it was the consequence that plaintiff looking for in the Court of Request. However the
imperious results was that Stringfellows wasn’t under an responsibility to pay Ms Quashie and
payment was done to the stringfellows because it danced in her club for entertaining customers.
11.
It is significant to conclude that if anyone is an worker or not because only employee have right
to claim in any biased firing take place not just simply workers.
12.
This type of situation arises at the time when an individual work for an company on the
unplanned basis. Therefore, it is important to display that there is a combination of a agreement
in any holes among the period of employ.
13
Yes, the Court of Appeal agrees with the Service Court’s analysis related to mutuality as of
obligations. Further Employment tribunals were entitled to say that there was no relationship
established by the agreement between employer and employees. A submission was accepted by
Mr. Linden in which EAT was, in fact, using the idea of support of responsibility in different
customs. There he deported that concept is utilized in such a manner that the Tribunal was
5

concentrating on the nature of the duties and responsibilities. And decided that there wasn’t any
mutual obligation or a sort that can secure the agreement in the service capacity
14.
The court removed from the ready mixed concrete case on the basis three fundamentals that is
important to develop for creating a relationship in a agreement of service among them one of
these fundamentals which are required for existence a sympathy of responsibility betwixt the
employees and the owner. Therefore, it is important to meet all the requirements.
15.
The material fact is known as the fact which is important and applicable for the case to being
analyses and make decision. Material fact have some straight effect on the conclusion of the
court which they made after listening to the both views
16.
The ground of request is submitted to the court at the time when there was any misreading of the
decision made by Employment Appeal Tribunal. It leads to held that the decision of employer is
not to help under the responsibilities to pay any conditions to the plaintiff for the work and she
did undertake was right. Further, it can be stated that it was held that Employ Appeal Tribunal
cannot interfere with the answers. Hence the absence of this all responsibilities is not reliable
through the concept of the work bargain and wage which is below the root of the employment
contract.
17.
According to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Nadine Quashie carry her claim of biased
dismissal because they think that conflicting to the judgement of the Employment Tribunal in
which appellant was under obligation for paying the claimant. Henceforth decidion was made by
Employment Appeal Tribunal that the fact which was client were the source of the pay is not
right and it is completely irrelevant.
18.
The Law court of Request decide for the appellant who was Stringfield as because it think that
Employment Tribunal was fully entitled to make decision that between employer and employee
there was no relationship. The reason for which it tribunal in reverence to sympathy of
responsibility was accepted although not completely. Afterward the request was uphold, and that
6

the conclusion was made that there was no agreement of service was reestablished by court of
law
19.
In the Service Tribunal and Court of Appeal, the case of Cheng Yuen v Royal Hong Kong Golf
Club useful because Employment Tribunal demonstrates saw a similarity at that was a very
reasonable one at the time when the court of law of Appeal inspected it. Under this, the club does
not completely employment the dancers to dance and plaintiff waged them to be a specified a
chance to earn some money which it gains from client while dancing as a tip
The ratio decidendi is known as the reasons for making any decision. While it can be defined as
a point the case that decides the judgments. Hence in the given case claimant has not received a
official paper of the employment contract and she was certain by the relations. Hence it can be
stated that is a portion of ratio decidendi since there is club contract which is developed with the
plaintiff and ET did not obtain it. Apart from this, she also not received any booklet to the
welcome the stringfellows the cabaret of angels. Thus work judge expressed that data which is
contained is like the house rules and the agreement was performed in connection to those terms
unless it had not gotten the formal record. Aside from this Nadine Quashie was in charge of
paying her own particular assessment and national protection and it is a piece of Ratio Decidendi
in light of the fact that the ET choice on the financial hazard was upheld from the way that the
terms of the agreement comprise of the artist that acknowledge that she for sure independently
employed and led their issues on the specific premise. The ET choice was qualified for choose
that there was no connection amongst workers and manager that can be built up by this contract
21.
In the case of Stringfellow restaurants, Ltd V Nadine Quashine fills in as a server at an
Italian eatery known as Ricardo’s Ristorante and Bar the decision was made She gets the
national the lowest pay permitted by law as installment for her work however she profits from
the tips she gets from clients in the eatery. There is the different test which can be used for
establishing whether Isabel can be classified as an employee or not. In this manner, a standout
amongst the most broadly embraced ones can be the multi factorial test that is originate from the
instance of Ready Mixed Concrete case. From the Ready Mixed Concrete case, the Tribunal in
Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Nadine Quashie was chosen
.
7

There are three elements which are presented at the time relationship required to establish in
the contract of the employment. Elements are as follows
• The contract should create and obligation on a person for providing a work in respect to
pay a way or rumination to another person.
• 2nd among all is basic for there to be a commonality of commitment betwixt the
representative and business and it should be legal obligation toward the one another that is
continuous overriding arrangement.
• At last, it is important to have control over the employees.
However, this approach is not developed and the subjects are not merely linked to control
and the pure nature of the prescribed provision which can lack the consistency that contract
being a contract of services. Not at the time of applying the test, hence court to review the all the
key components that make the business relationship for choosing the idea of the agreement for
deciding the contract is of which type
Subsequently it demonstrates that Isabelle got the national the lowest pay permitted by law
and profit from tips and which get from the clients. It is what cafeteria does not expect her to
give them. Along with this she got significant instalment from the tips which are left by clients.
It doesn't imply that she isn't in an agreement of work. As per this reality unmistakably eatery
was obliged to pay Isabelle her wages. As indicated by the fact obviously Isabelle has impliedly
consented to the subject for controlling by the business. Henceforth it is upheld by the way that
according to the agreement she will undoubtedly take after all the particular Rota for each shift
week.
From the Nadine Quashie on account of Stringfellow it is obvious that Isabelle not attempted
any level of budgetary hazard. Alongside this, it is a subject of the level of control and business
was will undoubtedly supply her with work. Consequently these all components are reliable with
her being an employee
.
Daniel
Under the case, Daniel cannot be stated as employees because of few reasons. 3 of the key
aspects of the multifactorial test in Ready Mix for establishing in order for Daniel so that it can
be classified as an employee. From the fact it also shows that there is no degree of control by
8

Ricardo which must be the form of control on the worker by the manager. Along with this Daniel
bring its own alcohol for making a cocktail and to sell it to customers and do not follow any type
of rota. Apart from this, there is also a chance that Daniel unable to make enough deals in a
single night. Henceforth simple reality is that he goes out and bear some economic risk which is
also a significant factor huge factor for him to being a employer
It is concluded that Ricardo was get any payment by Daniel and it was only paid by a
customer as he considers the certain of risk as because if its soft drink does not sale it may suffer
from loss as because he purchases alcohol from his own money and did not provided any type of
sick leave or off from the work. Therefore, from the above factor it is clear that daniel has not
hired Ricardo and he is not liable to pay which shows no terms of employment contract
9

References
Komárek, J., 2013. Reasoning with previous decisions: beyond the doctrine of precedent. The
American Journal of Comparative Law, 61(1), pp.149-172.
Pether, P., 2015. Strange Fruit: What Happened to the United States Doctrine of Precedent. Vill.
L. Rev., 60, p.443.
Callander, S. and Clark, T.S., 2017. Precedent and doctrine in a complicated world. American
Political Science Review, 111(1), pp.184-203.
Lam, R., 2014. Minimally legally invasive Dentistry. Australian dental journal, 59(4), pp.432-
438
10

11