1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS DECISION
20th November 2008, Page 28
20th November 2008
Page 28
Page 28, 20th November 2008
— THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS DECISION
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The amount of work that Mr Thompson did varied from week to week. It was inevitable that it would do so considering the nature of the business, eg the transportation of the equipment of music acts between venues, the frequency of which inevitably varied.
The Tribunal was in no doubt that Mr Thompson provided his own work and skill in return for remuneration, that there was an adequate degree of control present and we are unable to find anything to indicate that Mr Thompson was anything but an employee.
• Heard at Bedford, 23 September 2008, judgement 6 October 2008