Claimant v RVB Transcendence Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found claimant was not an employee but operated through his company ACS in a business-to-business arrangement. There was no relationship of subordination, control, or mutuality of obligation consistent with employment. Purported employment contract and timesheets were fabricated.
Tribunal concluded there was no contract of employment. The arrangement was between the respondent and the claimant's company ACS. Even if a contract existed, Benny Jose had no authority to issue it, rendering it ineffective.
As the claimant was found not to be an employee and had no contract of employment, he had no entitlement to holiday pay. The relationship was a commercial arrangement between businesses.
Facts
Claimant claimed to be employed as deputy manager of a care home from May 2023. The respondent argued the arrangement was business-to-business through the claimant's company ACS, which supplied staff to the care home. The claimant and Benny Jose (another ACS director) were learning care home operations to develop ACS's capability to bid for care home contracts. The tribunal found the claimant fabricated key documents including employment contract and timesheets.
Decision
Tribunal found claimant was not an employee but operated through his company in a commercial relationship with the respondent. There was no subordination, control, or mutuality of obligation characteristic of employment. The purported employment contract was fabricated, and Benny Jose lacked authority to issue it. All claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay dismissed.
Practical note
Where a claimant operates through their own limited company in a business development arrangement, tribunals will scrutinize documentary evidence closely and may draw adverse inferences from failure to produce metadata or other contemporaneous evidence, particularly where documents appear fabricated.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004651/2024
- Decision date
- 1 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Deputy Manager (claimed)
- Service
- 11 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No