Cases1604233/2024

Claimant v Whitehead Building Services Ltd

12 May 2025Before Employment Judge C SharpCardiffin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

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.

Direct Discrimination(age)struck out

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.

Victimisationstruck out

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

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41Allonby [2004] ICR 1328Bates van Winkhelhof [2014] ICR 730PGMOL v HMRC [2024] ICR 1480Harrods Ltd v Remick [1996] ICR 846Jones v Friends' Provident Life Office [2003] NICA 36(1)Ter-Berg v Simply Smile Manor House Ltd and others [2023] EAT 2

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.83Equality Act 2010 s.41

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