||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 174 (May)
|| UKSC 29
Lord Hope DP, Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Carnwath SCJJ
||Dinah Rose QC, Oliver Hyams and Emma Dixon (instructed by Pothecary Witham Weld Solicitors) for the appellant.
||John Bowers QC, Mark Hill QC and James Bax (instructed by Nalders LLP) for the respondent.
||15 May 2013
Employment - Contract of service - Church - Respondent being minister of Methodist Church - Respondent subsequently issuing proceedings in employment tribunal alleging unfair dismissal - Proceedings being dismissed as respondent not employee - Decision being reversed by Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) - Court of Appeal, Civil Division upholding EAT's decision - Appellant appealing - Whether respondent employee.
Employment Contract of service. The respondent former minister had sought to bring proceedings in the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. The tribunal dismissed her claim, as she was not an employee. That decision was reversed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a decision subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division. The President of the Methodist Conference appealed. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the respondent's relationship with the church was governed by its constitution, a Deed of Union and by standing orders of the conference. Further, a special arrangement of a contractual nature had not been entered through an exchange of letters.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases