The majority held that the identity of an employer under a training contract is determined by an objective assessment of the state of affairs between the parties, not merely by the name written in the contract form, and that the 'reality of purported contractual arrangements' can be considered without finding a sham. The dissent held that where a written contract unequivocally names a party, the objective theory requires that party to be treated as the contracting party regardless of surrounding circumstances. The case illustrates a significant division on the proper approach to identifying contracting parties where a written document names one entity but surrounding circumstances point to another.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.