Claimant v Anti-Graffiti Systems Limited (trading as AGS One)

The tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing he was an employee under section 230(1) ERA 1996. He worked through his own limited company (Jessklin Limited), was self-employed, and there was no mutuality of obligation or sufficient control to establish employment status. Strike out for lack of jurisdiction.

The claim was for automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure (whistleblowing). Struck out on two grounds: (1) no reasonable prospect of showing employee status required for unfair dismissal claims; and (2) no reasonable prospect that the alleged disclosure was a protected disclosure—the allegations were undated, vague, and differed fatally between witness statement and list of issues.

The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of showing the claimant was employed under a contract of employment, apprenticeship or contract personally to do work as required by section 83 Equality Act 2010. The claimant worked through his limited company and could not demonstrate personal service obligation. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Claim against Andrew Sim personally: the claimant and his witnesses made absolutely no mention of Mr Sim in any witness statement and there was no evidence whatsoever that Mr Sim did anything unlawful. No reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing employee status as defined in section 230(1) ERA 1996, which is required to bring breach of contract (notice pay) claims in the employment tribunal. Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of showing worker status under section 230(3) ERA 1996. The claimant could not show he was required to perform work personally and provided services through a contract between the respondent and his limited company Jessklin Limited. Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success.

As with the unlawful deduction claim, the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing worker status under section 230(3) ERA 1996 because the claimant could not demonstrate personal service obligation and worked through his limited company. Struck out for no reasonable prospect of success.

Claim of detriment for making a protected disclosure. The tribunal found the claimant met the extended definition of worker in section 43K ERA 1996, but had no reasonable prospect of success because: the alleged disclosure differed fatally between witness statement and list of issues undermining credibility; the allegations had no prospect of being a protected disclosure; and the allegations were undated and vague.