Employment News — 27 January 2014: bare necessities: implied contract between agency worker and client was not necessary

The claimant in Smith v Carillion (JM) Ltd worked in the construction industry through an employment agency. He brought claims, against two end-user companies, of detrimental treatment on grounds of his trade union and safety representative activities. He did not have an express contract and the tribunal ruled that no contract could be implied, so his claims could not be heard.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. The claimant had raised five factors as indicative of a contract…

If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below. 

Briefings from Hogan Lovells

View more briefings from Hogan Lovells

Analysis from The Lawyer

View more analysis from The Lawyer


Atlantic House
Holborn Viaduct

Turnover (£m): 1,030.00
No. of lawyers: 2,280
(UK 200)
Jurisdiction: UK
No. of offices: 9
No. of qualified lawyers: 206 (International 50)