Claimant v Rugby Farmers Mart Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. The claim was dismissed as the claimant did not have the requisite employment status.
The tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the age discrimination claim. The claim was dismissed as the claimant did not have the requisite employment status.
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee, and therefore had no entitlement to a statement of written terms under section 1 ERA 1996. The claim was dismissed due to lack of employment status.
The tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, and therefore had no entitlement to notice pay. The claim was dismissed due to lack of employment status.
The tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, and therefore had no entitlement to holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations. The claim was dismissed due to lack of employment status.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent, a livestock market, from May 2008 to July 2023 performing cleaning and droving duties on market days. He was paid £12.50 per hour via weekly invoices with VAT, set his own hours, chose when to attend, and was never subject to PAYE. He ran his own farming business simultaneously. The respondent considered him self-employed, though the claimant argued he was an employee or at minimum a worker.
Decision
The tribunal held the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker. The tribunal found he was not required to provide personal service as he could substitute (as evidenced by another contractor doing so), there was no mutuality of obligation as he chose which days to work and could decline work, and the respondent exercised insufficient control as he determined his own hours and methods of work. The relationship was one of business-to-business with the respondent as a client.
Practical note
A long-standing working relationship and regular attendance pattern is insufficient to establish employment or worker status where the individual has genuine freedom to substitute, no obligation to accept work, control over their own working hours and methods, and operates their own business in parallel.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1308185/2023
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- agriculture
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Cleaning and droving work (moving livestock)
- Service
- 15 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister