\n The court of appeal has sided with a pilot who worked for Ryanair through an agency, rejecting the airline\u2019s claim that the pilot was self-employed, and thus unentitled to the same employment rights as other employees.
\n <\/p>\n
Jason Lutz worked for Ryanair<\/a> from July 2018 to January 2020, via a contract with MCG Aviation (which is now Storm Global). The court of appeal dismissed both Ryanair and Storm Global\u2019s claim that Lutz was self-employed, and instead confirmed that Lutz had been wrongly classified as self-employed. The decision<\/a> was published on Tuesday (8 July 2025). \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis case serves as a useful reminder for employers that the written agreement is only one relevant factor when determining employment status<\/a>,\u201d said Stephen Mutch, employment lawyer and director at Pannone Corporate, speaking to\u00a0HR magazine. \u201cThe key question is what the arrangement looks like on a day-to-day basis.\u201d<\/p>\n Dave Chaplin, CEO of contracting authority ContractorCalculator, agreed, telling\u00a0HR magazine that the ruling “reinforces that contrived arrangements cannot be used to circumvent employment protections”.<\/p>\n Read more: British businesses have become \u2018agency worker-reliant\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n Marie van der Zyl, employment partner at Keystone Law, highlighted that this case should serve as a prompt for HR leaders to reassess their organisations\u2019 relationships with agency workers.<\/p>\n She told\u00a0HR magazine: \u201cThe court ruled [that Lutz] was both a worker of Storm Global and an agency worker contracted out to Ryanair, entitling him to protections such as holiday pay<\/a>, sick leave and regulated rest breaks.<\/p>\n \u201cFor HR leaders, the case highlights the need to review contractor and agency relationships to ascertain whether the working reality supports genuine self-employment<\/a>. If the day-to-day arrangement reflects a relationship of employment or worker status, courts are likely to reclassify it accordingly, regardless of the contractual structure.\u201d<\/p>\n Speaking to HR magazine, Seb Maley, CEO of the insurance provider and consultancy Qdos, added: \u201cHR leaders can certainly take learnings from this. Such is the complexity of employment status, only in-depth assessments that leave no stone unturned will do. The potential cost of getting things wrong can be staggering for businesses.\u201d<\/p>\n The Lutz appeal decision is the latest in a long line of similar findings, explained Mutch: \u201cThis judgment is the latest in a series of cases finding in favour of claimants in respect of employment status.<\/p>\n Read more:\u00a0Getting employment status right<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe unique issue in this case was that the claimant was provided to Ryanair to perform services by an agency, which was found to be his employer. He was found to be a worker of Ryanair due to the significant amount of day-to-day control which it had over the arrangement, but the court rejected the argument that he was an employee of Ryanair.<\/p>\n