Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) v Wright

[2004] ICR 1126

Case summary last updated at 20/02/2020 19:33 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) v Wright

P entered a ‘subcontract’ agreement with D to work on a 6-month project. He was paid weekly, supplied none of his own tools, with tax being deducted. There was a clause allowing him ‘to employ his own operatives and also the supply of sufficient labour to maintain the rate of progress the company might stipulate.’ CA held that he was a worker for purposes of working time regs (see above). 
 
Pill LJ: Policy considerations and the ‘actual facts’ do NOT determine whether a person comes within the definition of worker: This is simply a matter of statutory construction. The fact that P actually did the work personally does not mean that there was a contractual obligation to do so (it simply provides evidence sometimes). Here there was an obligation on P to do the work personally: The wide substitution clause was simply there because the contract was standard-term and used for subcontracting businesses, as well as individuals like P. 
 
Holman J: He criticised the EAT (lower court) for looking at what actually happened rather than what the contract said. He maintained that considering what happened in fact was ‘irrelevant’ and ‘inadmissible’.

Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) v Wright crops up in following areas of law