Claimant v Whitehead Building Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not employed by Sphere Solutions Ltd but was self-employed, trading on his own account. As he was not an employee or worker under s83 Equality Act 2010, he could not be a contract worker under s41 EqA. Therefore, he had no standing to bring discrimination claims against the respondents as principals.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not employed by Sphere Solutions Ltd but was self-employed, trading on his own account. As he was not an employee or worker under s83 Equality Act 2010, he could not be a contract worker under s41 EqA. Therefore, he had no standing to bring discrimination claims against the respondents as principals.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not employed by Sphere Solutions Ltd but was self-employed, trading on his own account. As he was not an employee or worker under s83 Equality Act 2010, he could not be a contract worker under s41 EqA. Therefore, he had no standing to bring discrimination claims against the respondents as principals.
Facts
The claimant, an electrical installer, was engaged through Sphere Solutions Ltd (a recruitment agency) to work at a construction site in Abergavenny managed by the second respondent with the first respondent as services subcontractor. He attended site on 10 June 2024 and was asked to leave shortly after. He worked through an umbrella company (Crest Plus) under the CIS construction scheme as a self-employed contractor. The claimant brought claims for disability discrimination, age discrimination and victimisation against both respondents on the basis he was a contract worker under s41 Equality Act 2010.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the claimant was not a contract worker under s41 Equality Act 2010. The claimant was self-employed, trading on his own account, not employed by Sphere. Sphere had no contractual control, no supervision function, and there was no mutuality of obligation. The claimant provided his own tools, bore the risk of non-payment, and was free to accept or refuse work. The first respondent was not a principal as the claimant was not employed by Sphere, and the second respondent had no contract with Sphere and was too removed from the engagement.
Practical note
In the construction industry, workers engaged through recruitment agencies under CIS arrangements who provide their own tools, bear financial risk, and have no mutuality of obligation are self-employed contractors, not contract workers under s41 Equality Act 2010, even where the end-user client controls day-to-day work.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1604233/2024
- Decision date
- 12 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Electrical installer / Electrical Improver
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No