Claimant v Duchess Place LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a limb (b) worker under s.230 ERA 1996. There was no contract with the respondent LLP; the agreement was between the claimant and Ms Morah personally. The claimant had autonomy to set her own rate and hours, could substitute others to do the work, and held herself out as running a cleaning business with multiple clients. Without worker status, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the wages claim.
The tribunal found the claimant was engaged personally by Ms Morah in her personal capacity, not as an agent for the respondent LLP. There was no contractual relationship with the respondent. Although the tribunal acknowledged money was owed, it had no jurisdiction as the claimant was found to be self-employed rather than an employee or worker.
Facts
The claimant contacted Ms Morah via WhatsApp about cleaning work and cleaned three properties owned by Ms Morah in August 2023. The claimant set her own hourly rate, proposed bringing a substitute worker, and was already working for another cleaning company (JB Cleaning). She submitted advance time estimates and used cleaning products left in the properties. The respondent argued the claimant was self-employed and engaged by Ms Morah personally, not by the LLP.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the claimant was neither an employee nor a limb (b) worker. The claimant had autonomy to set her rate and hours, could substitute others without objection, held herself out as running a business with multiple clients, and was not provided with equipment. The tribunal also found the agreement was with Ms Morah personally, not the LLP, so there was no contractual relationship with the respondent.
Practical note
A cleaning worker who sets their own rates, can freely substitute others, works for multiple clients simultaneously, and is not provided with equipment will be classified as self-employed rather than a worker, depriving the tribunal of jurisdiction over wages claims even where payment is admittedly owed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3313418/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Cleaner
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No