Claimant v Cardiff Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee but a self-employed contractor providing services to the respondent. Unfair dismissal requires employee status. The claim was also presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to have presented in time, so time was not extended.
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee. The claim was also out of time — none of the required steps were taken within the initial 6 months. The tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee. The claim was also presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to have presented in time, so time was not extended.
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee. Claimant did not argue worker status in the alternative. The claim was also presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to have presented in time, so time was not extended.
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee. Claimant did not argue worker status in the alternative. The claim was also presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to have presented in time, so time was not extended.
Facts
Ms Jordan worked as an ARC respite carer for Cardiff Council from May 2017 to September 2023, providing short breaks for young people with additional needs in her own home. She was paid a retainer allowance. The ARC short break service disbanded in September 2023 and the claimant's payments ceased. The claimant believed she remained employed and was waiting for a new role to be confirmed with backdated pay. She did not commence ACAS early conciliation until March 2024, some 3 months late. The respondent argued the claimant was not an employee but a foster carer under a statutory framework, or at best a self-employed contractor.
Decision
The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent. Although there was a contract (distinguishing the foster carer case law because this was respite care for non-looked-after children under a separate statutory framework), the contract was not a contract of employment. The parties did not intend to create an employment relationship; it was a commercial arrangement for the provision of services. All claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The claims were also out of time and it was reasonably practicable to have brought them in time, so time was not extended.
Practical note
A respite carer for non-looked-after children under Welsh fostering regulations may have a contract (unlike traditional foster carers), but employment status still requires examining the whole context and parties' intentions — and a contractual engagement for services is not necessarily a contract of employment even where there is significant integration, control, and personal service.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1601450/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Cardiff Council
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- ARC respite carer
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No