Self Employed in UK Law

Second, within the latter class, the law now draws a distinction between two different kinds of self-employed people. One kind are people who carry on a profession or a business undertaking on their own account and enter into contracts with clients or customers to provide work or services for them. The other kind are self-employed people who provide their services as part of a profession or business undertaking carried on by some-one else.

In Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College ( Case C-256/01) [2004] ICR 1328, the European Court of Justice was concerned with whether a college lecturer who was ostensibly self-employed could nevertheless be a "worker" for the purpose of an equal pay claim.

The essential questions in each case are therefore those identified in paras 67 and 68 of Allonby [2004] ICR 1328, namely whether, on the one hand, the person concerned performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he or she receives remuneration or, on the other hand, he or she is an independent provider of services who is not in a relationship of subordination with the person who receives the services.

But the discretion must be exercised judicially and in most cases in which a decision has been found to be flawed, it would not be a proper exercise of the discretion to refuse to quash it. Both the nature of the flaw in the decision and the ground for exercise of the discretion have to be considered. In Berkeley, the flaw was the complete absence of an EIA and the sole ground for the exercise of the discretion was that the result was bound to have been the same.

The fact that the worker has very considerable freedom and independence in how she performs the duties of her office does not take her outside the definition. Judges are servants of the law, in the sense that the law governs all that they do and decide, just as clergy are servants of God, in the sense that God's word, as interpreted in the doctrines of their faith, governs all that they practise, preach and teach.

An arrangement between two parties to put forward a dishonest description of their relationship so as to deceive the Revenue would clearly be illegal and unenforceable, on the other hand, if their relationship is ambiguous and is capable of being one or the other, then the parties can remove that ambiguity, by the very agreement itself which, they make with one another.

Leaving merits aside for a moment, there seem to me to be a number of factors of significance in the present case: the importance of vindicating the rule of law, as Lord Diplock emphasised at 644E; the importance of the issue raised, as in ex parte Child Poverty Action Group and Others; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger, as in ex parte Child Poverty Action Group and Others and ex parte Greenpeace Ltd; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief is sought (See per Lord Wilberforce at 630D in ex parte National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd); and the prominent role of these Applicants in giving advice, guidance and assistance with regard to aid (See ex parte Child Poverty Action Group and Others at 1048J).