This decision makes an important point about characterisation. The issue was whether payments to the director of a development entity and his wife were ‘wages’ giving rise to a ‘cash flow boost’ entitlement14. The director gave evidence they were wages and that he and his wife were employees.
However, as Olding SM said (at ), neither labels adopted nor statements made are determinative of the legal nature of a relationship – ‘Rather, it is the nature of the legal rights and duties that, as a matter of law, determine its character’15. The balance of the evidence given, however, indicated the tribunal accepted there was employment some of the time.
This principle is from Episode 85 of interpretation NOW!