112:
controlling shareholder can prevent the company from dismissing him from his position. It would be inconsistent with the purposes of the 1978 Act to extend protection to a person who cannot be dismissed from his position in a company without his agreement. This result conforms both to common sense and to the industrial or commercial realities of the situation… The decision does not mean that there will always be a contract of service in such circumstances. It all depends on the context. That was a case of a claim for compensation. The purpose of the insurance arrangements covering employees of the company was to provide compensation for a dependant, such as a widow, in the event of an accident to an employee. That purpose would be defeated if it were held that Mr Lee was not a worker under a contract of service. The liability to pay compensation could not be avoided by an attack on the validity of the contractual relations between Mr Lee and the company (which was not suggested to be a sham). His position as a controlling shareholder did not make it impossible in those circumstances for his wife to satisfy the conditions for the payment of compensation under the insurance arrangement.
111:
If the claimant is able, by reason of a beneficial interest in the shares of the company, to prevent his dismissal from his position in the company, he is outside the class of persons intended to be protected by the provisions of the 1978 Act and is not an employee within the meaning of that Act… A
106:
for the
Employment Appeal Tribunal held the purpose of the legislation is not to help people whose businesses have failed. Therefore, he upheld the tribunal, that the directors could not claim reimbursement from National Insurance.
95:
section 160). The
Employment Tribunal held that because directors could block decisions at board level, including decisions over their dismissal, they were not employees.
142:
88:
218:
256:
400:
405:
395:
161:
135:
244:
232:
287:
87:
Two directors held the company's shares. They made a claim against the
National Insurance Fund, for statutory redundancy under the
128:
173:
273:
164:
350:
320:
176:
200:
92:
191:
292:
263:
301:
17:
204:
186:
361:
72:
332:
305:
309:
336:
208:
79:
case, concerning the protection of employees' salaries on their employer's insolvency.
389:
366:
346:
103:
76:
120:
124:
158:
41:
Buchan and Ivey v
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
68:
Buchan and Ivey v
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
54:
46:
36:
31:
109:
89:Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
220:McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment
136:
8:
258:Regeling v Bedrijfsverg de Metaalnijverheid
143:
129:
121:
28:
275:Mann v Secretary of State for Employment
162:Employer's Insolvency Convention 1992
7:
245:SS for Trade and Industry v Bottrill
233:Buchan v SS for Trade and Industry
32:Buchan v SS for Trade and Industry
25:
18:Buchan v SS for Trade and Industry
288:Robins v SS for Work and Pensions
401:Employment Appeal Tribunal cases
321:Re Allders Department Stores Ltd
406:1997 in United Kingdom case law
396:United Kingdom company case law
174:Insolvency Protection Directive
1:
422:
201:Employment Rights Act 1996
93:Employment Rights Act 1996
343:
329:
317:
299:
284:
270:
253:
241:
229:
215:
198:
183:
171:
156:
59:
151:Employees and insolvency
114:
60:Insolvency protection
302:Insolvency Act 1986
187:Francovich v Italy
362:UK insolvency law
357:
356:
351:UK insolvency law
73:UK insolvency law
64:
63:
16:(Redirected from
413:
333:Krasner v McMath
276:
259:
221:
145:
138:
131:
122:
29:
21:
421:
420:
416:
415:
414:
412:
411:
410:
386:
385:
380:
375:
358:
353:
339:
325:
313:
295:
280:
274:
266:
257:
249:
237:
225:
219:
211:
194:
179:
167:
152:
149:
119:
101:
85:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
419:
417:
409:
408:
403:
398:
388:
387:
384:
383:
379:
376:
374:
371:
370:
369:
364:
355:
354:
344:
341:
340:
330:
327:
326:
318:
315:
314:
300:
297:
296:
285:
282:
281:
271:
268:
267:
254:
251:
250:
242:
239:
238:
230:
227:
226:
216:
213:
212:
199:
196:
195:
184:
181:
180:
172:
169:
168:
157:
154:
153:
150:
148:
147:
140:
133:
125:
118:
115:
100:
97:
84:
81:
62:
61:
57:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
38:
37:Full case name
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
418:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
393:
391:
382:
381:
377:
372:
368:
367:UK labour law
365:
363:
360:
359:
352:
348:
347:UK labour law
342:
338:
337:EWCA Civ 1072
335:
334:
328:
323:
322:
316:
311:
307:
303:
298:
294:
290:
289:
283:
278:
277:
269:
265:
261:
260:
252:
247:
246:
240:
235:
234:
228:
223:
222:
214:
210:
206:
202:
197:
193:
189:
188:
182:
178:
175:
170:
166:
163:
160:
155:
146:
141:
139:
134:
132:
127:
126:
123:
116:
113:
108:
105:
98:
96:
94:
90:
82:
80:
78:
74:
71:IRLR 80 is a
70:
69:
58:
53:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
30:
27:
19:
331:
319:
286:
272:
255:
248:EWCA Civ 781
243:
231:
217:
185:
110:
102:
86:
67:
66:
65:
40:
26:
390:Categories
378:References
177:2008/94/EC
77:labour law
312:, para 99
104:Mummery J
91:(now the
293:C-278/05
279:IRLR 566
264:C-125/97
117:See also
99:Judgment
55:Keywords
47:Citation
324:BCC 289
291:(2007)
262:(1999)
236:IRLR 80
224:ICR 549
209:182-190
205:166-170
190:(1990)
50:IRLR 80
310:Sch B1
192:C-6/90
373:Notes
306:176ZA
165:C 173
83:Facts
349:and
345:see
308:and
207:and
75:and
203:ss
159:ILO
392::
304:s
144:e
137:t
130:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.