232:
218:
452:
340:
298:
258:
121:
418:
246:
104:
354:
136:
326:
270:
382:
312:
206:
150:
407:
164:
97:
368:
141:
154:
178:
90:
29:
413:
316:
358:
344:
386:
372:
302:
288:
284:
126:
446:
396:
56:
330:
196:
182:
168:
52:
274:
67:
There was a law firm called clyde and co. It was mean to bates. bates sued clyde.
82:
75:
Lady hale said he was a worker. so clyde couldnt be mean to him.
86:
59:
case, concerning the scope of protection for workers.
35:
25:
20:
234:Market Invest Ltd v Minister for Social Security
98:
8:
220:Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v SS for Pensions
105:
91:
83:
17:
193:Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof
49:Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof
21:Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof
7:
341:Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd
299:Lane v Shire Roofing Co (Oxford) Ltd
259:Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner
122:Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Wurttenberg
14:
355:Muscat v Cable & Wireless Plc
137:Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz
327:Carmichael v National Power plc
271:Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung
453:United Kingdom labour case law
247:O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc
1:
383:Muschett v H M Prison Service
313:McMeechan v SS for Employment
207:Cassidy v Minister of Health
469:
151:Employment Rights Act 1996
113:Workplace protection cases
408:United Kingdom labour law
393:
379:
365:
351:
337:
323:
309:
295:
281:
267:
255:
243:
229:
215:
203:
189:
175:
161:
148:
133:
118:
40:
437:A Casebook on Labour Law
165:Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
419:Case no: 2202550/2015
369:James v Greenwich LBC
403:
402:
179:Jivraj v Hashwani
45:
44:
460:
439:(Hart 2018) ch 3
235:
221:
107:
100:
93:
84:
30:UK Supreme Court
18:
468:
467:
463:
462:
461:
459:
458:
457:
443:
442:
432:
427:
414:Aslam v Uber BV
404:
399:
389:
375:
361:
347:
333:
319:
305:
291:
277:
263:
251:
239:
233:
225:
219:
211:
199:
185:
171:
157:
144:
129:
114:
111:
81:
73:
65:
12:
11:
5:
466:
464:
456:
455:
445:
444:
441:
440:
431:
428:
426:
423:
422:
421:
410:
401:
400:
394:
391:
390:
380:
377:
376:
366:
363:
362:
352:
349:
348:
338:
335:
334:
324:
321:
320:
310:
307:
306:
296:
293:
292:
285:Hall v Lorimer
282:
279:
278:
268:
265:
264:
256:
253:
252:
244:
241:
240:
230:
227:
226:
216:
213:
212:
204:
201:
200:
190:
187:
186:
176:
173:
172:
162:
159:
158:
149:
146:
145:
134:
131:
130:
119:
116:
115:
112:
110:
109:
102:
95:
87:
80:
77:
72:
69:
64:
61:
43:
42:
38:
37:
33:
32:
27:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
465:
454:
451:
450:
448:
438:
435:E McGaughey,
434:
433:
429:
424:
420:
416:
415:
411:
409:
406:
405:
398:
397:UK labour law
392:
388:
385:
384:
378:
374:
371:
370:
364:
360:
357:
356:
350:
346:
343:
342:
336:
332:
329:
328:
322:
318:
317:EWCA Civ 1166
315:
314:
308:
304:
301:
300:
294:
290:
287:
286:
280:
276:
273:
272:
266:
261:
260:
254:
249:
248:
242:
237:
236:
228:
223:
222:
214:
209:
208:
202:
198:
195:
194:
188:
184:
181:
180:
174:
170:
167:
166:
160:
156:
152:
147:
143:
139:
138:
132:
128:
124:
123:
117:
108:
103:
101:
96:
94:
89:
88:
85:
78:
76:
70:
68:
62:
60:
58:
57:UK labour law
54:
51:
50:
41:Worker status
39:
34:
31:
28:
24:
19:
16:
436:
412:
381:
367:
359:EWCA Civ 220
353:
345:EWCA Civ 217
339:
325:
311:
297:
283:
269:
257:
245:
231:
217:
205:
192:
191:
177:
163:
135:
120:
74:
66:
48:
47:
46:
15:
387:EWCA Civ 25
373:EWCA Civ 35
303:EWCA Civ 37
289:EWCA Civ 25
430:References
447:Category
238:2 QB 173
224:2 QB 497
210:2 KB 343
142:C-397/01
79:See also
71:Judgment
36:Keywords
417:(2016)
331:UKHL 47
262:ICR 612
250:ICR 730
197:UKSC 32
183:UKSC 40
169:UKSC 41
140:(2005)
127:C-66/85
125:(1986)
53:UKSC 32
275:UKPC 1
425:Notes
63:Facts
55:is a
26:Court
395:see
155:230
449::
153:s
106:e
99:t
92:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.