Claimant v Plinian Capital Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee but a worker, and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint. The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee but a worker, and therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the claim for statutory redundancy payment. The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee but a worker, and therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the claim for damages for breach of contract (notice pay). The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found the Claimant was a worker and therefore has jurisdiction to hear the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. The merits have not yet been determined.
The Tribunal found the Claimant was a worker and therefore has jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding entitlement to payment in respect of annual leave. The merits have not yet been determined.
Facts
The Claimant worked as a Project Manager for the Respondent, a private equity firm investing in mining companies, from May 2013 to November 2023. She was engaged through her own limited company, Metallogenic Mining Ltd (MML), which invoiced the Respondent £5,000 per month (later reduced to £2,500). No formal contract was ever signed. Attempts in 2018-19 to establish employment contracts failed. From February 2022, the Respondent stopped paying invoices, leaving over £60,000 outstanding. The Claimant was dismissed in November 2023.
Decision
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not an employee but was a worker. Her claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, and breach of contract (notice pay) were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear her claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay, which will proceed to a full merits hearing.
Practical note
Even where services are invoiced through a personal limited company and parties initially intended self-employment, a tribunal may still find worker status where there is personal service, no genuine right of substitution, and the individual is integrated into the business rather than acting as an independent service provider to multiple clients.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2304168/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Project Manager
- Salary band
- £60,000–£80,000
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister