The claimant worked for the respondent as a market researcher under a succession of individual assignments. It was explained to the claimant at the outset that he would be engaged on an assignment basis only, that there was no obligation on him to accept work and no obligation on the respondent to offer assignments. He was not issued with a contract of employment or any statement of terms and conditions of employment, although he had various guides and a handbook. The claimant was not offered any more assignments and claimed unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal found that he was a worker, but not an employee on the basis that "there was no mutuality of obligation either from one assignment to another or during the course of any individual assignment". This conclusion was based upon a finding that the assignment could be terminated by either side without its being completed.

On appeal, it was held that the Employment Judge had erred in law. There was a contract in respect of each individual assignment and so there was "mutuality of obligation" sufficient to create a contract of employment, even if the contract was terminable at will.

Read the full judgement here.