Claimant v Joined Up SaaS Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee but a self-employed contractor. Employment status is a prerequisite for unfair dismissal claims under s.94 ERA 1996. The tribunal found insufficient control, mutuality of obligation, and other factors pointed to self-employment (independent business undertaking, continued work for other clients, no PAYE deductions, monthly retainer rather than salary).
The claim failed because the claimant was found not to be a worker. Unlawful deduction of wages claims under s.13 ERA 1996 require worker status. The tribunal found the claimant was in business on his own account, running Tribus Way consultancy, maintaining his website and PeoplePerHour profile, and providing services to multiple clients simultaneously.
The breach of contract claim failed on two grounds: first, the claimant was not an employee (required for tribunal jurisdiction under the 1994 Order); second, the tribunal found the July 2021 service contract was 'window dressing' for investors and never came into force. The consultancy agreement was lawfully terminated without notice due to the claimant's material breach (unauthorised payments and taking £5,000 from the company account).
Facts
The claimant, a chartered management accountant operating through Tribus Way consultancy, provided freelance financial services to the respondent (a SaaS InsurTech business) and related companies from 2019. He signed consultancy agreements and was paid monthly retainers without PAYE deductions. In July 2021 he signed a service contract providing for £80,000 salary, but this was never implemented. He continued to work for other clients and market his services. In October 2021 he unilaterally increased his payments from £1,500 to £3,000 per month, and in February 2022 transferred £5,000 from the company account to his personal account claiming security concerns. His engagement was terminated on 1 March 2022.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was a self-employed contractor, not an employee or worker. The respondent lacked sufficient contractual control over when, where and how the claimant worked. There was insufficient mutuality of obligation, as evidenced by the claimant's ability to 'reduce commitment' if not paid more. Other factors supported self-employment: he ran his own business (Tribus Way), worked for multiple clients simultaneously, invoiced initially, received no PAYE deductions, and both parties treated the relationship as self-employment. The July 2021 service contract was 'window dressing' for investors and never came into force. All claims failed.
Practical note
A senior consultant who signs written contracts and maintains an independent business with multiple clients will struggle to establish employee or worker status even if paid monthly retainers, especially where there is no evidence of control over working time, place, or manner of work, and where the relationship began on clearly freelance terms.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302110/2022
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chief Financial Officer
- Salary band
- £80,000–£100,000
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No