Claimant v Newcode Partnership Ltd

The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of s230(1) ERA 1996 but was a self-employed contractor. There was insufficient mutuality of obligation and control, the claimant drafted his own contract describing himself as 'self-employed professional', and invoiced through his own company. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.

The claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the claimant was found to be self-employed, not an employee. The alleged protected disclosure regarding VAT figures was not sufficient to establish employee status, and the tribunal found the claimant consistently held himself out as a contractor throughout the relationship.

The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker within s230(3) ERA 1996. He was paid by invoice through his personal service company, bore financial risk when payment was delayed, and the respondent was effectively a customer rather than an employer. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the wages claims.

The tribunal found the claimant did not fall within the extended definition of worker in s43K ERA 1996. The terms of engagement were substantially determined by the claimant himself (he drafted the contract), not by the respondent or third party. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction over the protected disclosure detriment claim.