ET3 grounds for resisting detriment claim-exclusivity terms in zero hours contracts
Produced in partnership with Natasha Joffe of Outer Temple Chambers
ET3 grounds for resisting detriment claim-exclusivity terms in zero hours contracts

The following Employment precedent produced in partnership with Natasha Joffe of Outer Temple Chambers provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

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

    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.

    1. 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 the work was carried out by the Claimant’s brother-in-law [insert name]. The Respondent paid fees for assignments to Speedy Delivery gross and the Claimant was responsible for ac

Popular documents