June 01, 2005
To be, or not to be, or maybe
Ordinary business folks can be excused if they think it's the job of judges to make contractual liability as unpredictable as possible. In a recent decision, the U.K.'s Employment Appeals Tribunal has one of those decisions that will lead to nice fees for litigators and no end of head-scratching for businesses.
In the case, the EAT had to determine whether an employee of an agency supplied to a third-party user should be considered an "employee" of the third party user. There are presumably good reasons for answering either "yes" or "no," but that would have been no fun. Instead, "a very careful factual assessment" must be made in each case "before any such conclusion is reached." The lawyers of London's CMS Cameron McKenna have a brief summary.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference To be, or not to be, or maybe: