Claimant v Van Arthur Flower Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, so could not bring an unfair dismissal claim. Additionally, the claimant did not have two years qualifying service and was not asserting any statutory right that would make the dismissal automatically unfair.
The tribunal found that the claimant was in employment within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 because she was under a contract personally to do work pursuant to s83(2)(a), therefore the race discrimination claims proceed to a full hearing.
Facts
Miss Smith brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination against Van Arthur Flower Group Limited. At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal examined her employment status. She was found not to be an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996 definition and lacked the two years qualifying service required for ordinary unfair dismissal protection. She was not asserting any statutory right that would make her dismissal automatically unfair.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim due to lack of employee status and qualifying service. However, the race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed because the claimant was found to be in employment under the Equality Act 2010, having a contract personally to do work under section 83(2)(a).
Practical note
Worker status under the Equality Act 2010 is broader than employee status under the Employment Rights Act 1996, allowing individuals without employee status to bring discrimination claims even when unfair dismissal claims are unavailable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302994/2023
- Decision date
- 9 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- in house
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No