IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v53y2024i3p524-542..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Domino Dancing: Mutuality of Obligation and Determining Employment Status in Ireland

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Doherty

Abstract

It has taken a while, but what has been described as the first ‘gig economy’ case has been decided by the Irish Supreme Court. Although the case did not involve the use of a platform to organise work, it did require the Supreme Court to rule on the question of the employment status of pizza delivery drivers, all of whom were labelled as ‘independent contractors’ in the contracts between the company and the drivers. The case was taken by Revenue, which contended that the drivers, in fact, should have been classified as employees for tax purposes. The Supreme Court took the opportunity to present a long and detailed judgment on the correct approach to determining employment status, and, in particular, on the role of ‘mutuality of obligations’ in this consideration, with an extensive review of case law from the UK. This analysis discusses the case, with a particular emphasis on the view taken by the Court on mutuality of obligations in the context of ‘casual work’.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Doherty, 2024. "Domino Dancing: Mutuality of Obligation and Determining Employment Status in Ireland," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 53(3), pages 524-542.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:524-542.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwae018
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:524-542.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.