Claimant v Zortmund Horvath t/a Nonstopdiag
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of s.230 ERA 1996. There was no contract of employment (written or oral) between the parties. The arrangement was a family/domestic one where the claimant assisted her partner's business without an intention to create legal relations or mutuality of obligation. Without employee status, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker within the meaning of s.230 ERA 1996. The irregular payments made by the respondent to the claimant were found to be financial support between partners in a relationship, not remuneration for work. There was no contract of employment or contract to perform services personally. Without worker status, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this claim.
The claimant claimed failure to provide an itemised pay statement, which requires worker status. The tribunal found no contract existed between the parties, neither written nor oral, and no intention to create legal relations. The arrangement was a domestic one consistent with a personal relationship. Without worker or employee status, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this claim.
Facts
The claimant and respondent were in a personal relationship from March 2020 to early 2024, became engaged, and bought a home together in December 2021. The claimant claims she was employed as office manager for the respondent's appliance repair business from 1 October 2021 to 7 January 2024. The respondent operated as a sole trader with 1-2 engineers and says the claimant helped him as his partner on an ad-hoc basis without any employment contract. The claimant produced unsigned documents purporting to evidence employment, but the tribunal found these were not provided by the respondent and were likely created by the claimant. Payments made to the claimant were irregular and inconsistent with a salary.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction, finding the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker. There was no written contract of employment as the documents were unsigned and inconsistent with the respondent's other employment contracts. There was no oral contract either, as there was no evidence of an offer, no intention to create legal relations (applying the presumption against such intention in family arrangements), no proper consideration (payments were partner support not wages), and no mutuality of obligation. The arrangement was a domestic one where the claimant voluntarily helped her partner's business.
Practical note
Employment status cannot be established where the relationship is domestic/familial and lacks the irreducible minimum of mutuality of obligation, intention to create legal relations, and consideration—unsigned documents and irregular payments alone do not create an employment contract.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201131/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Office Manager
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister