- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Carol ran a business in London which specialised in producing computer software programmes. Diana worked for Carol for a period of three years. She was described as self-employed and paid tax as a self-employed person. Carol provided her with specialist computer equipment. Diana usually worked at home and was allowed to work on other projects. She could even arrange for her work for Carol to be done by someone else if she was too busy to do it personally. Recently, when Carol lost her most important contract, she told Diana that there would be no more work for her
Q) Assuming that it was concluded that Diana was self-employed, identify which of the following she could bring a claim for?
Redundancy
Wrongful dismissalAnswers are
redundancy no
Wrongful dismissal yesTHIS IS ADAPTED FROM ACCA JUNE 2000 in kaplan. I believe it is wrong? If not can you explain?
Carol and Diana.
I don’t believe that there’s any uncertainty about the redundancy aspect.
But wrongful dismissal? This is tricky and, so far as I can see, is dependent upon other information that isn’t given in your post. The answer really depends on the nature of the business relationship that existed between Carol and Diana. If Carol’s actions are seen to be a breach of contract, then Diana should be able to sue for that breach.
But can a breach of contract be termed ‘wrongful dismissal’? Wrongful dismissal occurs when an employer wrongfully dismisses an employee ….
But we’ve established in the question that Diana was not an employee – she was self-employed.
In summary, depending upon the business relationship between the two, it would appear that Diana does potentially have a claim for breach of contract. But can that breach be considered wrongful dismissal?
Personally, I don’t believe that it can (because they are not in an employer / ee relationship). But I’m only disagreeing with Kaplan on the semantic basis of the use of the term ‘wrongful dismissal’ and, even then, I’m only agreeing with Kaplan on the assumption of an implied contract between the two ladies.
Does that help?
Notice? That depends on the terms of the contract … and we are not aware of those contractual terms
Why is it breach of contract? I explained that!
This is what I posted on August 19 at 8.59: The answer really depends on the nature of the business relationship that existed between Carol and Diana. If Carol’s actions are seen to be a breach of contract, then Diana should be able to sue for that breach.
OK?
(Poor question – lacks too much information)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.