Claimant v Miss Julia Sieckmann t/a Julia Aurelia Tarot and Meditation
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim for notice pay dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within s.230(1) ERA 1996, and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the claim.
Claim for unlawful deduction of wages dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker within s.230(3) ERA 1996, and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the claim.
Withdrawn by claimant prior to the preliminary hearing.
Withdrawn by claimant prior to the preliminary hearing.
Facts
The claimant provided video editing services for the respondent's tarot and meditation online business from October 2022 to March 2024. The parties were also in a romantic relationship during this period. They agreed orally that the claimant would receive 40% of revenue from certain video content (later reduced to 20% for one course). The claimant was not paid a salary, received no payslips, no holiday or sick pay, and was not subject to tax deductions. The arrangement ended when the romantic relationship concluded in early 2024. The claimant brought claims for unpaid wages and notice pay, asserting he was an employee or worker.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal concluded the arrangement was a commercial profit-sharing agreement more akin to self-employment. There was insufficient mutuality of obligation, no adequate control by the respondent, and the respondent was effectively a client or customer of the claimant's freelance film-making services.
Practical note
A profit-sharing arrangement without guaranteed remuneration, where the individual shares commercial risk and has significant autonomy, is likely to be classified as self-employment rather than employment or worker status, even if the arrangement involves regular engagement over an extended period.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6006446/2024
- Decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- media
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Video Editor
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No