A camel is not a horse, just because you want it to be one
Levy McCallum Ltd v Middleton,
Employment Appeal Tribunal,
9 August 2005
Levy McCallum Ltd was considering making some of its staff redundant. Middleton, an account director, offered to accept redundancy, and then supply the company with services as a self-employed consultant.
Levy McCallum agreed, but five months later it terminated the arrangement and Middleton complained to a tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal. To succeed, he had to establish that he remained an employee during his self-employed period. The tribunal found that some elements of the relationship pointed to him being employed while others suggested he was self-employed.
Balancing all the relevant factors, the tribunal held that Middleton had remained an employee, despite the fact that both parties had genuinely believed he was self-employed.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Levy McCallum appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), arguing that the intention of the parties should have been the deciding factor.
The EAT, however, dismissed the appeal, saying: “If parties agree to create a horse but instead create a camel, the fact that they intended to create a horse and even call what they have created a horse is of little assistance in determining whether it is, in fact, a horse.”
If there is still some real ambiguity after the parties’ intention has been taken into account and the case is relatively finely balanced, only then should the parties’ intention be a decisive factor.
