Many of you will have seen our Top Twenty Tweets of Twenty Twelve - a compilation of the 20 most topical employment law questions, answered using case study examples from the last year. The case of Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie [2012] EWCA Civ 1735 was considered, addressing the issue of lap dancers and their employment status.
In the latest decision, in relation to the employment status of the Claimant in the above case, the English Court of Appeal has found that the Claimant, a lap dancer, was not an employee. This overturns case number 8 in our Top Twenty Tweets.
Ms Quashie, who was a lap-dancer at London's most infamous "gentleman's club", Stringfellows, brought a claim for unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal (ET) after she was dismissed due to gross misconduct. The ET was tasked with ascertaining whether Ms Quashie was in fact an employee of Stringfellows, as she claimed, or if, as Stringfellows argued, she was self-employed.
The ET concluded that she was not an employee as no mutuality of obligation existed between the parties.
The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and it upheld her appeal - they held that she was an employee, as there was an obligation on the part of the Appellant to provide work for her and that this work was required to be performed by the Claimant herself. This meant that a degree of control existed and therefore an employer/employee relationship existed.
An appeal followed by Stringfellows to the Court of Appeal which upheld it and concluded that Ms Quashie did not in fact have a contract of employment with the Appellant, as the Appellant was under no obligation to pay the Claimant: The Claimant received payment directly from her clients.Lord Justice Elias highlighted that the Claimant "took the economic risk" and this proved to be "a very powerful pointer against the contract being a contract of employment."
Disclaimer
The material contained in this article is of the nature of general comment only and does not give advice on any particular matter. Recipients should not act on the basis of the information in this e-update without taking appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.
