Claimant v Stratus Security Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant's claims for whistleblowing were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant at the outset of the hearing.
The claimant's claims for unfair dismissal were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant at the outset of the hearing.
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker under the Equality Act 2010, therefore the claim can proceed to a full merits hearing. No determination on the merits was made at this preliminary stage.
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996, therefore the claim can proceed to a full merits hearing. No determination on the merits was made at this preliminary stage.
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker under the Working Time Regulations 1998, therefore the claim for unpaid annual leave can proceed to a full merits hearing. No determination on the merits was made at this preliminary stage.
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee at common law. Consequently, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim for notice pay under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order, which requires employee status. The claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Facts
The claimant worked as an asset protection officer and bodyguard for a high-net-worth foreign national client, engaged through the first respondent security company. He was paid cash directly from the client via a bag system, worked shifts on a rota basis organized by the first respondent, and could swap shifts only with other vetted officers. The relationship was governed by a subcontractor agreement with a non-disclosure clause, but no invoices were ever requested or submitted, and the respondent director referred to officers as 'my staff' in text messages. The claimant's engagement ended when the client instructed the first respondent to fire him after he failed to turn up for a shift without warning.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was a worker for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, Employment Rights Act 1996, and Working Time Regulations 1998, but not an employee at common law. The contract labeled the claimant as a subcontractor but did not reflect the reality of the relationship. The tribunal found insufficient control to establish employee status, but the personal service obligation and absence of a genuine business on own account meant worker status was established. The breach of contract claim for notice pay was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Practical note
A security officer engaged under a subcontractor agreement may still be a statutory worker if the contract does not reflect reality, there is a personal service obligation, and they are not in business on their own account, but employee status requires sufficient control which intermittent shift work may not provide.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013440/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Asset Protection Officer and body guard
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister