EAT rules in favour of stripper in Stringfellows dispute By Margaret Taylor 27 April 2012 13:11 17 December 2015 13:14 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 27 April 2012 at 15:37 don’t you just hate it when your defence goes t1ts up? Reply Link Anonymous 27 April 2012 at 17:08 Thanks Anonymous That’s gotta be my nomination for the beat comment of the week! Reply Link Anonymous 27 April 2012 at 20:09 Pro Bono work I assume Reply Link grapevine 28 April 2012 at 11:19 IMVHO, the issue cannot be whether there was , or was not a Contract in place. I used to employ entertainers and they always had a contract FOR SERVICES, This stipulated the days of performances, the agreed fees and contained “Time and Distance” bars precluding them from other appearan ces in the Town at the same time. I determined when they would “go on” but they determined the nature and content of their Act. They were self Employed. This case surely turns on the degree of control, rendering it arguably a Contract of Service” rather than a Contract for Services. Reply Link dragonfly 30 April 2012 at 06:23 Interesting to see if she now decides to pay the taxman the tax she would have had to have paid had she not claimed to be self employed or were her earnings taxed at source (not!). Reply Link Anonymous 2 May 2012 at 13:12 You’d think they would have put up a pic of the stripper! Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.