Flett v Matheson: [2006] EWCA Civ 53

CA: Pill, Wall and Lloyd LJJ: 7 February 2006

The applicant, aged 17, entered into a tripartite agreement with his employers, electrical contractors, and a training provider to work as an apprentice for the employers for a period of 42 months while receiving wages from them and studying under the employers and the training provider, pursuant to "advanced modern apprenticeship arrangements", to qualify as an electrician. The employers dismissed the applicant summarily after less than a year. The employment tribunal declined to entertain his claim against the respondent, to whom the employers' business had been transferred, for damages for breach of contract, including loss of the benefit of training, holding that the agreement fell outside the definition of "contract of employment" in section 42(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing in part an appeal by the applicant, held that the agreement was, within the definition, a "contract of service" but not a "contract of apprenticeship" and, therefore, the applicant was confined to claiming damages in lieu of notice in respect of the former.

The applicant appealed.

The Court of Appeal held:
Since the agreement required the applicant to work for the employers as an apprentice while earning wages from them and training for a period of considerable length with their support to qualify as an electrician, the agreement had the essential features of a contract of apprenticeship. Under the agreement, if continuation of the arrangement did not suit the circumstances of the employer, the employer had to try to find an alternative employer, but, if such attempts failed, the obligation remained on the employer and he could not dismiss the apprentice within the period of training, save in cases of incapability. As various terms of the arrangement had been insufficiently explored, the matter would be remitted to the employment tribunal for further consideration of the evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the employment tribunal.

Appearances: Edward Legard (Student Law Office, University of Northumbria) for the applicant; the respondent did not appear and was not represented.