- Solicitors For Business
- Solicitors For You
- About Us
- News & Events
Order made in the case of Simply Learning Tutor Agency Ltd & Others v Secretary of State for Business23rd September 2020 Employment
On 18 September 2020 the High Court made it’s order in the judicial review of Simply Learning Tutor Agency Ltd & Others v Secretary of State for Business  EWHC 2461 (admin). Justice Mountfield heard the case and held that the meaning of “employment” in Section 13(1) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (EAA) should be read to include “work provided by natural or legal persons who provide services including tutoring services on a self-employed basis as an independent contractor”.
The arguments brought by the various tutoring companies included claims that they were not employment agencies or employment businesses and therefore were not subject to the regulation put in place by the EAA. Their reasoning was that their business model did not fall within the definitions provided because where an operator merely introduced suppliers to customers or clients they did not do anything which resulted in tutors being employed by them. They argued that they simply provided introduction services combined with payment collection and administrative services which would not amount to being an ‘employment agency’ or ‘employment business’ under the definitions provided in the EAA. This argument was found to be wholly unconvincing by Justice Mountfield.
The conclusion reached by the High Court is that that the definition of employee within the EAA was wider than that at common law, as it included both those who would be classed as employees at common law and those who would fall outside of this usual definition but who still offer their services in some way. Justice Mountfield concluded that her reading of the definition of employment at section 13(1) of the EAA was that this was intended to include all situations where a business supplies people personally to preform work for a third party and that this is in keeping with the broad protective purpose of the legislation as a whole.
Summarising the decision, Justice Mountfield noted that “in short, where a business holds itself out as a ‘middleman’ between a person who needs services and the person offering to supply them, the protective terms of the EAA and the regulatory requirements of the Conduct Regulations will usually apply to the ‘middleman’ business for the protection of work-seekers, hirers and work-users” and that these tutoring agencies were no exception to this general rule and as such the act should be construed accordingly.
If you think this judgement may affect your business, or you have any queries about agency and recruitment law please contact us for more information about how our specialist recruitment and employment lawyers can help you on 0345 872 6666.