autoclenz ltd v belcher造句

• Its opinion was reversed by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and superseded by the more recent Supreme Court decision by Lord Clarke in " Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher ".
• ""'Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher " "'[ 2011 ] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals.
• This case has been criticised on the ground that it fails to give adequate weight to the context of employment contracts, which differ from commercial contracts, particularly in light of developments in the law of unjust enrichment and the decision of " Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher ".
• It has been consistently doubted, and its outcome reversed by legislation, and its reasoning superseded by " Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher ", which states that the only " mutual " obligations that are required is the consideration of work for a " quid pro quo ".
• In turn, section 88 defines a worker in the same way as the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 230, as someone either with a " contract of employment " ( on which, see " Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher " ) or someone who personally performs work but is not a client or a customer.