Jason Lutz v Ryanair DAC & Anor

For the purposes of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004, an agency worker may be employed by the supplying agency even though the user undertaking exercises day-to-day direction and control. Genuine contractual arrangements may identify the employer, and operational control does not itself imply a second employment relationship.

Under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, “temporarily” means for a finite or time-limited period, not necessarily for a short period. A fixed-term supply remains temporary even if the work is full-time, the worker is fully rostered, or a further fixed-term contract may later be offered.

Jason Lutz worked as a contracted Ryanair pilot through MCG Aviation Ltd, now Storm Global Ltd. His services were supplied to Ryanair under contractual arrangements which included a five-year term. Ryanair controlled his operational work, while MCG paid him and was the contractual counterparty.

The Employment Tribunal held that he was a crew member employed by MCG under the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 and an agency worker under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed appeals by Ryanair and MCG: [2023] EAT 146. The Court of Appeal considered whether MCG was his employer for annual-leave purposes and whether his supply to Ryanair was temporary for equal-treatment purposes.

1. Annual leave claim. MCG’s appeal was dismissed. The Claimant was entitled to bring a claim against MCG under regulation 4 of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004.
2. The CAWTR had to be interpreted, so far as possible, consistently with Directive 2000/79/EC and its autonomous EU concepts of worker and employer. It was accepted that the Claimant was a worker and a member of flight crew. The remaining question was which party was his employer.
3. Applying James v London Borough of Greenwich [2008] EWCA Civ 35, the contractual arrangements between the Claimant and MCG fully explained the provision of his services to Ryanair. There was no basis for implying an employment contract or employment relationship with Ryanair. The fact that Ryanair exercised exclusive operational direction and control was typical of a tripartite agency arrangement and did not alter that conclusion. The reasoning in Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 concerned worker status and protection, not the identity of the employer in a tripartite arrangement.
4. Regulation 36 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 did not support a different result. It addressed an exceptional situation in which an agency worker had no worker’s contract with either the agent or the principal. The Claimant had a contract with MCG.
5. The CAWTR could operate where the contractual employer was not the airline operator. The employer would have to secure compliance by the operator, and contractual arrangements could require the airline to roster the crew member consistently with the statutory limits.
6. Equal terms claim. Both appeals were dismissed. Under regulation 3(1)(a) of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, “temporarily” contrasts with an indefinite or open-ended supply. It means finite or time-limited employment, not necessarily short-term employment. Introducing a duration threshold would create uncertainty and an unjustified gap between permanent and short-term agency work.
7. The inquiry concerns the basis on which the worker’s services are supplied to the hirer, including the purpose and nature of the supply. The contract between the agency and worker is relevant and may be sufficient where it clearly states the basis of the supply and is reflected in practice. It is not invariably determinative.
8. On the assumed single-supply analysis, the Claimant was supplied to Ryanair for a single five-year term. The possibility that contracted pilots were commonly issued a further five-year contract did not make the supply indefinite because the Claimant was unaware of that practice. Nor did full rostering make the supply permanent.
9. The ground concerning the Charter did not require determination. The Court dismissed both MCG’s and Ryanair’s appeals.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Both appeals by Ryanair and MCG/Storm Global Ltd dismissed: [2025] EWCA Civ 849.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal — Appeals against the Employment Tribunal’s preliminary findings dismissed: [2023] EAT 146.
• Employment Tribunal — Held that the Claimant was a crew member employed by MCG under the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 and an agency worker under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.