Storm Global Limited (Appellant) v Lutz and another (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Linked cases
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0129

Parties

Appellant(s)

Storm Global Limited

Respondent(s)

Ryanair DAC

Jason Lutz

Issue

(1) Was Mr Lutz supplied to work “temporarily” for Ryanair for the purposes of Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010? (2) Was Mr Lutz a crew member “employed by” Storm Global Limited within the meaning of regulation 3 of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004?

Facts

Ryanair DAC (“Ryanair”) operates an international airline. At the time material to these proceedings, Ryanair’s pilots were either directly employed by it or were supplied by Storm Global Limited, previously known as MCG Services (“MCG”). Employed pilots and contracted pilots were treated identically by Ryanair. On 10 August 2017, Mr Lutz applied to Ryanair to become a pilot. After passing Ryanair’s preliminary assessment, he was informed by MCG that he had passed and had been offered a position as a contracted pilot. Thereafter, Mr Lutz’s services as a co-pilot were supplied to Ryanair pursuant to a contract between him and MCG dated 19 October 2017. The contract duration was five years. On 13 January 2020, following an incident between Mr Lutz and Ryanair management, Mr Lutz was sent a letter by MCG terminating its contract with him. On 28 May 2020, Mr Lutz commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal claiming: (i) against MCG, that he was a crew member “employed by” MCG within the meaning of regulation 3 of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (“CAWTR”) and (ii) against both MCG and Ryanair, that he was an agency worker for the purposes of regulation 3 of the AWR Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (the “AWR”). The Employment Tribunal held that Mr Lutz was both a crew member “employed by” MCG for the purposes of the CAWTR and was an agency worker for the purposes of regulation 3 of the AWR. Ryanair and MCG appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on both issues. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Ryanair and MCG then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. Ryanair now appeals to the Supreme Court on the sole issue of whether Mr Lutz was supplied to work “temporarily” for the purposes of regulation 3(1)(a) of the AWR. MCG appeals on both issues.