Claimant v Victoria Gazibar
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker under s230(1) or s230(3) ERA 1996. Without this status, claims for arrears of pay and unpaid wages have no reasonable prospects of success and were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a).
The tribunal concluded no contractual relationship existed between the parties. The claimant was found to be the first respondent's boyfriend who helped out in the business, not a worker or employee. The claim for unpaid commission had no reasonable prospects of success.
Facts
The claimant claimed he was employed as a Managing Partner/Business Manager from September 2022 to August 2024 by a medical and beauty salon operated by the respondents. He alleged he was owed arrears of pay, unpaid wages and commission. The respondents denied any employment relationship, asserting the claimant was the first respondent's boyfriend who simply helped out in the business without any contractual obligation or agreement to pay wages. The tribunal heard evidence from five witnesses over two days.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee under s230(1) ERA 1996 nor a worker under s230(3) ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the claimant was in a personal relationship with the first respondent and helped out voluntarily, finding no mutuality of obligation, no obligation of personal performance, and insufficient control. The claims for arrears of pay, unpaid wages and commission were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Practical note
Where an individual assists in a business owned by a romantic partner without clear contractual terms, tribunals will scrutinise whether the irreducible minimum requirements of worker status are met, particularly mutuality of obligation and personal performance obligations, and may conclude the assistance was provided in a personal rather than professional capacity.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6017392/2024
- Decision date
- 26 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Victoria Gazibar
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Managing Partner/Business Manager
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister