Weightwatchers (UK) v Commissioners for HMRC
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Arden |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Civ 1155 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2012/0127 |
| Date | 28 June 2012 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 1155
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(TAX & CHANCERY CHAMBERS)
(MR JUSTICE BRIGGS)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Arden
Case No: A3/2012/0127
A3/2012/0128
Mr Jonathan Peacock QC and Mr Stuart Ritchie QC (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) appeared on behalf of Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd.
Sharon Lowes and the Respondents did not appear and were not represented.
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal from the order of 25 October 2011 of Briggs J sitting in the Upper Tribunal. The question in essence with which the judge was concerned was whether leaders of Weight Watchers meetings were employees of Weight Watchers or not. This turned on the application of the well-known conditions in the Ready Mix Concrete case [1968] 2QB 497. The leaders were paid to conduct meetings, which were meetings attended by members of the public who wished to check their weight, and the leaders would weigh the persons who attended, and collect fees. They were also paid a commission on the sale of products, and they were bound to remit the balance of the fees, less commission, to Weight Watchers. There was an umbrella contract, and there were also certain conditions, including condition 10, that if the leader did not propose to take any particular meeting on any particular occasion, and was unable to find a suitably qualified replacement, Weight Watchers would, if so requested by the leader, attempt to find such replacement. The condition went on to say that the leader would give the area service manager as much prior notice as possible.
The question with which the judge was principally concerned was whether condition 10, which broadly speaking was a substitution clause, gave the leader effectively freedom not to perform personal services, so that the contract could not be regarded as one of service. In short, the judge held that the contract was one of service dismissing the appeal from the First-tier Tribunal. The judge interpreted condition 10 as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R & C Commissioners v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd
...between the parties, is a contract of employment or some other contract.” Finally, the UT drew upon Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd v HMRC [2012] EWCA Civ 1155 in which Briggs J noted that MOO has a dual purpose. Firstly, that it will determine whether a contract exists, but secondly, that it can ......
-
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd
...The relevant mutuality must subsist throughout the whole period of the contract and, in contrast with Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd v HMRC [2012] EWCA Civ 1155 and Cornwall County Council v Prater [2006] EWCA Civ 10 102, the referee was entitled to withdraw from the engagement before he arrived ......