ET3 grounds for resisting detriment claim-exclusivity terms in zero hours contracts
ET3 grounds for resisting detriment claim-exclusivity terms in zero hours contracts

The following Employment guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • ET3 grounds for resisting detriment claim-exclusivity terms in zero hours contracts

Produced in partnership with Natasha Joffe of Outer Temple Chambers

  1. 1

    It is admitted that the Claimant has undertaken occasional cycle courier assignments for the Respondent since about [insert date]. It is denied that the Claimant was a worker or that he was engaged under the contract set out at paragraph 2 of the Grounds of Claim. The terms set out are standard terms for the Respondent’s worker contracts but the Claimant was never engaged on such a contract.

  2. 2

    The Claimant offered cycle courier services through his limited company, Speedy Delivery. The Respondent engaged the services of Speedy Delivery from time to time when it had too many deliveries for its own workers to complete. Work was provided to Speedy Delivery on the basis that a competent cycle courier would be provided to carry out assignments. There was no requirement that the Claimant provide services personally and on several occasions