Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Case law

Cable & Wireless v Muscat, Employment Appeal Tribunal

by Eversheds HR Group 29 Mar 2005
by Eversheds HR Group 29 Mar 2005

When is an employee still considered an employee?
Cable & Wireless v Muscat, Employment Appeal Tribunal

Muscat was employed by EIL until, at the request of EIL, he became a ‘designated contractor’. He set up a limited company (‘E’) for invoicing purposes, but otherwise continued to work as before.

When Cable & Wireless (C&W) took over EIL, Muscat was told to provide his services through an agency, and an agreement between ‘E’ and the agency was entered into. But again, Muscat continued working as before.

All equipment he used was paid for by C&W, and he took his annual leave to suit C&W. His only contact with the agency was in relation to the payment of his invoices.

In December 2002, Muscat’s contract was terminated. A tribunal found that Muscat remained an employee of EIL when he became a designated contractor, and that his employment transferred from EIL to C&W by virtue of TUPE.

The tribunal held that there was an implied contract between C&W and Muscat, and that at all material times, Muscat was an employee of C&W.
C&W appealed, arguing that the agreement concluded between ‘E’ and the agency was crucial in that it removed Muscat as an employee of C&W and returned him to a status of being employed by neither the agency nor C&W. They argued that the agreement with the agency had destroyed the implied contract.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held, however, that the commercial reality of the case was that Muscat was working for C&W, and not the agency or ‘E’.

Permission was given to C&W to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Eversheds HR Group

previous post
Minimum wage leads to cut in hours
next post
Anyone else getting absurd expenses?

You may also like

Scottish government faces legal action over gender policies

18 Aug 2025

MPs ‘openly hostile’ to preferred choice for EHRC...

24 Jul 2025

School’s bid to appeal Kristie Higgs ruling refused...

11 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

Liberty to challenge EHRC consultation in High Court

3 Jun 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

‘Unacceptable to question integrity’ of Supreme Court judgment

2 May 2025

Trans ex-judge to appeal Supreme Court biological sex...

29 Apr 2025

  • Work smart – stay well: Avoid unnecessary pain with centred ergonomics SPONSORED | If you often notice...Read more
  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise