Claimant v MA Prestige Ltd

Outcome

Facts

The claimant worked as a vehicle recovery driver for the respondent from 1 May to 29 August 2023, paid £300 per week. He worked full-time, six or seven days per week, using the respondent's flatbed truck and petrol. The respondent's director, Mr Christodoulou, controlled the work assignments, schedule, start times, and required advance notice for time off. The claimant had no substitution rights and was the only driver. The respondent later required the claimant to provide invoices for payment, though the claimant did not understand their significance and used wording instructed by Mr Christodoulou.

Decision

The tribunal determined that the claimant was a worker under section 230(3)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found sufficient mutuality of obligation, personal service, and control by the respondent over the claimant's work. The provision of invoices did not reflect the true nature of the relationship, and the claimant was subordinate and dependent, not an independent contractor with the respondent as a client.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited