Hafal Ltd v. Lane-Angell

An overarching contract of employment requires legal mutual obligations extending beyond individual assignments. An expectation that a person who has declared availability will accept work is insufficient.

Clear terms stating that there are no guaranteed hours and that services will be used only as required and if available ordinarily create a framework for successive engagements. They negate any continuing obligation to offer or accept work. Such terms cannot be contradicted by implying an umbrella contract, absent a sham or findings showing legally enforceable obligations outside the periods of individual engagement.

The claimant was engaged as a paid Appropriate Adult on a bank basis to attend police stations when called. Her appointment letter stated that there were no guaranteed hours and that her services would be used as required if she were available.

The Cardiff Employment Tribunal held that an overarching contract of employment existed. It relied on the claimant's provision of availability, the rota system, a three-strikes rule for missed call-outs, and a later request for minimum monthly availability.

The employer appealed. The central issue was whether those features established continuing mutuality of obligation despite the express terms of appointment.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal erred in finding that the claimant was employed under an overarching contract of employment. Its failure properly to address the express terms of appointment made its assessment of the whole relationship flawed.
2. The appointment letter was not necessarily the exclusive record of the parties' relationship. In accordance with Carmichael v National Power plc [2000] IRLR 43, the parties' objective intention could be inferred from both the documents and their subsequent conduct. However, the written terms were unambiguous. They imposed no obligation on the employer to provide work and no obligation on the claimant to be available or to accept it.
3. The terms created a framework for successive engagements. If the claimant declared availability, was placed on a rota and accepted a call-out, the agreed terms governed that engagement. The Tribunal could not imply an umbrella contract containing positive obligations which contradicted those express terms: Stevedoring & Haulage Services Ltd v Fuller [2001] IRLR 627.
4. An expectation that the claimant would attend while on a rota did not establish a legal obligation throughout the relationship. The three-strikes rule was confined to those who had given availability and were on the rota. It could not establish mutuality between rotas. Nor could the minimum-availability requirement introduced from 1 May 2015 establish an obligation before that date.
5. The facts were distinguishable from St Ives Plymouth Ltd v Haggerty, where commercial practice could potentially crystallise into legal obligations. Here express terms negated such obligations, and there was no finding that the terms were a sham. The only lawful conclusion was that no overarching employment contract subsisted. The EAT substituted a decision that the claimant was not an employee.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the employer's appeal and substituted a decision that the claimant was not an employee.
• Cardiff Employment Tribunal: Held that an overarching contract of employment existed and that the claimant was an employee when her engagement ended.