Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+

Case law

Mingeley v Pennock & Ivory (trading as Amber Cars), EAT, 2004, All ER (D) 132

by Eversheds HR Group 24 Feb 2004
by Eversheds HR Group 24 Feb 2004


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.

Taxi driver not ’employed’: Mingeley worked as a taxi driver for Amber Cars. The terms of his [unwritten] contract included that he would provide his own vehicle, his hours were at his discretion and there was no requirement to notify Amber Cars if he took holidays or was sick. He kept all fares but paid £75 per week for the use of the firm’s radio/computer system. If he wanted a substitute driver for his vehicle, an additional £75 fee also had to be paid. He had to wear a uniform and was subject to the firm’s code of conduct for drivers.

Mingeley brought a claim of racial discrimination, alleging that he was treated less favourably than drivers of different ethnic origin in the allocation of work. The tribunal found that Mingeley was not an employee within the definition in s78(1) Race Relations Act 1976 (employed “under a contract of service… or a contract personally to execute any work or labour”) and dismissed his claim. Mingeley’s appeal was dismissed by the EAT. The Court of Appeal also dismissed his appeal. Applying the relevant authorities, the tribunal had correctly concluded that to fall within s78, the contract had to place Mingeley under an obligation to personally execute work. Mingeley was not obliged to carry out any duties at all and this therefore placed him outside the provisions of the Act.

Eversheds HR Group

previous post
Making it all add up
next post
Trade minister reports slowdown in EU regulations

You may also like

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

EHRC: Interim update on single-sex spaces draws criticism

28 Apr 2025

Opposition to Supreme Court sex ruling is ‘wishful...

22 Apr 2025

Supreme Court transgender ruling: ‘common sense’ or ‘incredibly...

17 Apr 2025

Supreme Court: legal definition of woman based on...

16 Apr 2025

Philip Green loses human rights case at ECHR

8 Apr 2025

Whistleblowing protections do not extend to external job...

4 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...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
OHW+
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
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+