Wolstenholme v Post Office Ltd; Hayward v Post Office Ltd; Tooby v Post Office Ltd; Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Post Office Ltd

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
Year2002
Date2002

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
11 cases
  • Patterson v Legal Services Commission
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 November 2003
    ...29 It is only necessary to refer to one other case in this regard. It is the comparatively recent case of Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Post Office [2003] IRLR 199, which was a decision of the EAT presided over by Burton P and which was (in our view correctly) accepted as correct by bot......
  • Manning v Walker Crips Investment Management Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • 1 January 2023
    ... ... did his own personal business in normal office hours meant he was conducting a business ... owed an obligation of personal performance (post, paras 48 , 52 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 69 , 71 ) ... Wolstenholme v Post Office Ltd [ 2003 ] ICR 546 , EAT ... ] ICR 667 , EAT Collector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd [2003] HKCFA 52 ; 6 ... a subcontractor may be regarded by the Inland Revenue as self-employed, and hold certificates ... ...
  • James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • Invalid date
  • The Hospital Medical Group Ltd v Westwood
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 July 2012
    ...it, as it invited, as a decision on its unique facts. 14 The next EAT decision upon which Mr Green relies is Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Post Office Limited [2003] IRLR 199. The case concerned a number of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. They ran their sub-post offices under co......
  • Get Started for Free