Claimant v Mr R Khodabux

Outcome

Facts

The claimant worked as a housekeeper for the first respondent at his home from 28 June to 14 August 2024. She had previously worked informally with a team of cleaners at the second respondent's offices. The first respondent approached her to clean and perform tasks at his new home following his separation. The work evolved from basic cleaning to broader housekeeping and personal life management, including shopping, coordinating tradespeople, and running errands. The claimant was paid £25 per hour in cash, initially working one day per week, later increased to two days (Mondays and Wednesdays). The respondent exercised a degree of trust and control over the work, and the claimant had no unfettered right to substitute someone else.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claimant was an employee within the meaning of section 83 of the Equality Act 2010. The work required personal service due to the degree of trust, discretion required, and the personal nature of tasks beyond mere cleaning. The claimant had no unfettered right of substitution and the relationship was one of subordination, not a business-customer relationship. The preliminary issue was resolved in the claimant's favour, allowing her Equality Act claims (including discriminatory constructive dismissal) to proceed to a full merits hearing.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited