Claimant v Newsteam Group Ltd.
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He was a self-employed contractor with an unfettered right to substitute under the Independent Contractor Agreement. Without employee status, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant sought £120 for a replacement tyre damaged during delivery work. The claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker as defined in section 230 ERA 1996, so the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 did not apply.
The claimant claimed £40 for his shift on 27 March 2025 and £150 for lost earnings. The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker or employee under section 230 ERA 1996, therefore section 13 ERA 1996 (protection against unauthorised deductions) did not apply. The respondent had invoked a contractual deductions clause in the Independent Contractor Agreement.
Facts
The claimant worked one shift as a newspaper delivery driver on 27 March 2025 for £40. He signed an Independent Contractor Agreement without reading it, which specified he was self-employed with an unfettered right to substitute. During the shift, his car hit a pothole and punctured a tyre. Unable to work the next shift due to the tyre damage, he was locked out of the company app and told to reapply. The respondent did not pay him for his completed shift, invoking a contractual deductions clause. The claimant claimed £40 in unpaid wages, £120 for the replacement tyre, and unfair dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims on jurisdictional grounds. It found the claimant was a self-employed contractor, not an employee or worker under section 230 ERA 1996. The written Independent Contractor Agreement contained a genuine and unfettered right to substitute, which was inconsistent with the obligation for personal performance required for worker status. Without employee or worker status, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, or unlawful deduction of wages.
Practical note
A genuine and unfettered contractual right to substitute is fatal to worker status claims, even where the individual worked only one shift and did not actually use the substitution clause.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6022907/2025
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- media
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- Newspaper and magazine delivery driver
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No