Cases6008679/2021

Claimant v Despatch Cloud Ltd

12 June 2025Before Employment Judge ArmstrongLeedsremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Struck out on 4 February 2025 on the basis that the claimant did not have sufficient length of service to bring such a claim.

Breach of Contractfailed

Tribunal found claimant was not an employee of the respondent, therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract claim which can only be brought by employees under s.3 Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

Tribunal found claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent. He provided services through his limited company Yortech Ltd under a genuine consultancy agreement with a right of substitution, full autonomy, and payment by gross invoice. Therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an unlawful deduction from wages claim.

Facts

The claimant was a director of Yortech Ltd, which entered into a consultancy agreement with the respondent on 1 November 2023 to provide Chief Commercial Officer services for £65,000 per annum. The agreement provided for autonomy, right of substitution, and payment by gross invoice. The relationship ended in August 2024 following allegations of gross misconduct. The claimant sought payment of £8,870 he claimed was outstanding, arguing he was a worker or employee entitled to bring claims for breach of contract or unlawful deduction from wages.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker. This was a genuine consultancy agreement between two limited companies. The claimant was not personally a party to the contract, there was a complete right of substitution, full autonomy in work, and payment by gross invoice consistent with the tax position. The tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Practical note

A director providing services through their own limited company under a genuine consultancy agreement with substitution rights and autonomy will not be a worker, even if provided with company email address and referred to by a job title.

Legal authorities cited

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd [2022] ICR 1339Catt v English Table Tennis Association Ltd [2022] IRLR 1022Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] ICR 1511Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co LLP [2014] ICR 730

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.27Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s.3Employment Rights Act 1996 s.230Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13Employment Rights Act 1996 s.23

Case details

Case number
6008679/2021
Decision date
12 June 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Chief Commercial Officer
Salary band
£60,000–£80,000
Service
9 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No