Employment Law - Shareholders - Employees or Third Party Contractors? - Contracts of Employment - IT

The case of Nesbitt and Another v Secretary ofon the basis that they were not employees within
State for Trade and Industry [2007] involved jointthe meaning of the 1996 Act. Their challenge to that
shareholder claimants who had contracts ofdecision was rejected by the employment tribunal.
employment with their company. The claimants wereThe tribunal held, inter alia, that they could not have
husband and wife. In February 1985, the secondbeen employees of the company because they
claimant incorporated a company as the vehicle for awere, in practice, in total overall control of the
new business providing IT training services tocompany and thus able to prevent their own
businesses and public bodies. In March 1986, the firstdismissals. The claimants appealed.
claimant joined her in the business. From that dateThe principal issue that fell to be determined by the
onwards, the share capital of the company consistedcourt was whether the tribunal had erred in treating
of 1,000 issued shares, 529 of which were held bythe fact of control as determinative of the question
the second claimant, and 470 of which were held byof whether the claimants had been employed by the
the first claimant. One share was held by F, thecompany. The appeal was allowed.
second claimant's mother.In the instant case, the tribunal had erred in treating
All three were members of the board. At its height,the fact of control as determinative. It was merely
the company had 20 employees working from fourone of the many relevant factors that fell to be
offices. From the outset the claimants had writtenconsidered when determining the question of
contracts of employment with the company. Thosewhether the claimants had been employed by the
contracts were in the same form as entered intocompany. The claimants had proper employment
with its first employees. The claimants were also paidcontracts, and those contracts were equivalent to
salaries proportionate to their roles as the seniorthose issued to the other initial employees. They also
managers of the business. They did not receivereceived their remuneration by way of salary. The
directors' fees or dividends.fact of control aside, there were no other factors
The company was managed on a day-to-day basispointing away from employee status. In such
mostly by the claimants, although eventually acircumstances, when considering the facts found by
project manager was employed. Most managementthe tribunal, the only conclusion properly open to the
decisions were taken fairly informally, board meetingstribunal had been that the claimants were employees
were held every six months, and additional meetingsof the company. Accordingly, the claim would be
were convened when required.remitted to the tribunal for a determination of the
Unfortunately during 2006 the company becamesums due to the claimants.
insolvent. On the 3rd of July 2006, the remainingIf you require further information please contact us
employees, including the claimants, were madeat or Visit
redundant by the liquidator. Subsequently, the© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does
claimants applied to the insolvency service fornot provide a comprehensive or complete statement
redundancy payments and other arrears owed toof the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it
them, pursuant to sections 166 to 168 and 182 toconstitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight
186 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (thegeneral issues. Specialist legal advice should always be
insolvency provisions).sought in relation to particular circumstances.
Their claims were rejected by the insolvency service