Claimant v Moon Predictions Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker under s.230 ERA 1996. There was no mutuality of obligation, no requirement for personal service (the claimant had a right to substitute), and the parties intended a self-employed relationship. Without employment status, the tribunal had no jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal claim.
The claim for notice pay failed because the tribunal concluded the claimant was not an employee or worker under s.230 ERA 1996. She was engaged as a self-employed contractor with no mutuality of obligation and no requirement for personal service.
The holiday pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker under s.230 ERA 1996. She was self-employed and appeared to accept she had no entitlement to holiday pay, repeatedly stating she could not afford to take time off work.
The tribunal found no whistleblowing claim had been properly pleaded in the ET1. The constituent parts of a protected disclosure were not set out or specified. The claimant applied to amend to add a whistleblowing claim but the tribunal refused, finding the application was late, not properly particularised as directed by EJ Ahmed, and it would not be fair or just to allow it.
Facts
The claimant worked as a receptionist for a psychic telephone reading company from around 2016 to December 2023. She managed calls and allocated them to readers, working on a shift and commission basis. Email evidence from 2016-2020 showed repeated references by both parties to the claimant being self-employed. The claimant invoiced for her work, used her own equipment, was not on payroll, and was responsible for her own tax. She claimed she had been unfairly dismissed and sought to add a whistleblowing claim, alleging she raised concerns about a customer stalking an ex-partner.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims on jurisdictional grounds. Employment Judge Chapman found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker under s.230 ERA 1996, but was self-employed. There was no mutuality of obligation (the respondent was not obliged to provide work and the claimant was not obliged to accept it) and no requirement for personal service (the claimant had a genuine right to substitute). The tribunal also found no whistleblowing claim had been properly pleaded and refused the claimant's application to amend, as it was late and not properly particularised despite earlier judicial directions.
Practical note
Employment status turns on substance over form: even where there is significant day-to-day control and a long-term relationship, if there is no mutuality of obligation and a genuine unfettered right to substitute (limited only by competence requirements), the individual will be self-employed, not a worker or employee.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600721/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Receptionist
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No