Claimant v The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee or worker within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996. There was no contract between the claimant and the respondent company, no mutuality of obligation (the claimant provided no services to the respondent, only to Kiran Sehgal personally), and the respondent exercised no control over the claimant's work. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent company. There was no contract of employment, no mutuality of obligation, and no control exercised by the respondent. As employment status is a prerequisite for redundancy pay claims, the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
The tribunal found that there was no contract, written or otherwise, between the claimant and the respondent company. The claimant's arrangement was with Kiran Sehgal personally, not the respondent. The respondent's only involvement was facilitating payment via payroll at Arvan Handa's instruction. Without an employment contract, the notice pay claim fails for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a worker within the meaning of the ERA 1996 or Working Time Regulations. There was no contract between the claimant and respondent, and the claimant provided no services to the respondent company. Worker status is required for holiday pay claims under the WTR, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a worker within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996. Although the respondent processed the claimant's wages via payroll, this was merely a payment mechanism and did not create an employment or worker relationship. Without worker status, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the arrears of pay claim.
Facts
The claimant worked as a nanny/housekeeper for Kiran Sehgal (the granddaughter of the respondent hotel company's founder) from April 2019. She was interviewed by and took instructions solely from Kiran Sehgal. In October 2019, Arvan Handa (a director and Kiran's father) instructed that the claimant be placed on the respondent's payroll. The claimant was paid via the respondent, had tax deducted, received a pension, and was furloughed during COVID-19. She worked Monday-Friday, 7am-7pm at Kiran Sehgal's home doing household duties. In May 2023, following internal disputes, the respondent stopped paying the claimant, who continued working for Kiran Sehgal and being paid directly by her.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent. There was no contract between them—only an arrangement between the claimant and Kiran Sehgal personally. The claimant provided no services to the respondent company, which exercised no control over her work. The respondent's payroll was merely a payment mechanism. Without the necessary mutuality of obligation, personal service to the respondent, or control by the respondent, all claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Practical note
Being placed on a company's payroll and receiving employment-related benefits (tax deductions, pension, furlough) does not automatically create employee or worker status if the individual provides no services to that company and is under the direction and control of a third party.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3309376/2023
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Nanny/Housekeeper
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister