In order to find that a contract is in part a sham, it was not necessary to show that both parties intended to paint a false picture as to the true nature of their obligations.

Tour guides who worked on a casual ‘as-and-when-required’ basis claimed that they were employees.

For a person to be an employee, there needs to be an obligation on the employer to provide work and an obligation on the individual to perform that work in return for a wage or some form of remuneration.

The individual’s contract allowed him to provide a substitute worker if he was not available.

It is inconsistent with a contract of employment that a person can provide a substitute. There must be an obligation to do the work personally.

A warden sexually abused the claimants while they were in his care.

The correct approach to vicarious liability in tort law is to ask whether the employee’s wrongdoing was so closely connected with his or her employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer liable.

A branch manager voluntarily changed his status from employee to self-employed, but claimed unfair dismissal when his contract was terminated.

If the true relationship of the parties is that of employer and employee under a contract of service, the parties cannot alter the truth of that relationship by putting a different label on it. 

Were Uber drivers self-employed, as Uber claimed, or workers within the protection of ­employment law?

The Supreme Court decided by a majority that they were workers because the ‘label’ of self-employment was untrue. In practice, they were subject to a vast amount of control by Uber.