Varnish v British Cycling: Dominant Purpose Is Not the Whole Test
In Varnish v British Cycling Federation [2021] ICR 44, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether a professional cyclist was an employee or worker.
The EAT confirmed that the dominant purpose or dominant feature of an agreement may be relevant. However, it is not a separate test that replaces the statutory wording.
The Tribunal must still consider personal service and whether the other party was genuinely a client or customer of the individual’s business.
Key finding
The dominant-purpose approach is a useful tool, but it is not decisive on its own.
Lesson
No single factor automatically determines status. The Tribunal must examine the whole relationship against section 230(3)(b).
8 Views