Claimant v Transport for London
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal applied the principle from James v Greenwich and Ryanair v Lutz that a contract of employment cannot be implied where working arrangements are fully explicable by existing contractual arrangements. Miss Johnson had a contract with Reed agency, and Reed had a contract with TfL. Her contract with Reed expressly stated she was 'not an employee of the Client'. There was no necessity to imply a contract of employment with TfL, and the unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent was therefore dismissed.
This claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing. The tribunal only considered the unfair dismissal claim against TfL. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims will proceed to a hearing at a future date.
Facts
Miss Johnson worked as a Topographical & Driver Skills Assessor for Transport for London from February 2022, but was supplied through Reed Recruitment Agency. She worked five days a week mainly in the office, had her timesheets approved by TfL's Mr Giles, but was paid by Reed. Reed handled any performance or disciplinary issues. Miss Johnson brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against TfL, Reed, and named individuals. This preliminary hearing considered only whether she could bring an unfair dismissal claim against TfL given her agency worker status.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim against TfL, applying the principle from James v Greenwich that a contract of employment cannot be implied where working arrangements are fully explained by existing contracts. Miss Johnson had a contract with Reed and Reed had a contract with TfL, with no necessity to imply direct employment. Her contract with Reed expressly stated she was not an employee of the client. The remaining disability discrimination claims will proceed to a future hearing.
Practical note
Agency workers cannot bring unfair dismissal claims against the end-user client even after long service, as courts will not imply a contract of employment where existing contractual arrangements fully explain the working relationship, though discrimination claims under the Equality Act may still proceed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6008069/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Topographical & Driver Skills Assessor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No