Cases→3201663/2023

Claimant v Planet Leasing Limited

18 June 2024Before Employment Judge Gordon WalkerEast Londonin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker under s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996 at the material time (April 2022 to May 2023). She operated through her limited company KLMW under a franchise agreement and was in business on her own account. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Direct Discrimination(sex)struck out

The tribunal found the claimant was not employed under a contract of employment, contract of apprenticeship or contract personally to do work under s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010, and was not a contract worker under s.41 Equality Act 2010. She worked through her limited company KLMW under a franchise agreement. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction.

Direct Discrimination(pregnancy)struck out

The tribunal found the claimant was not employed under a contract of employment, contract of apprenticeship or contract personally to do work under s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010, and was not a contract worker under s.41 Equality Act 2010. She worked through her limited company KLMW under a franchise agreement. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction.

Facts

The claimant was initially employed as a sales executive under a contract of employment from September 2021. In February 2022 she resigned and set up a limited company (KLMW) which entered into a franchise agreement with the respondent from April 2022. She operated under the Planet Leasing brand in the Thurrock territory. The franchise agreement was terminated in May 2023. She brought claims for arrears of pay and sex, pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

Decision

The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee or worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996, not an employee under the Equality Act 2010, and not a contract worker under s.41 Equality Act 2010. She operated through her own limited company under a genuine franchise agreement and was in business on her own account. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear her claims and they were dismissed.

Practical note

Where a worker voluntarily transitions from employee status to operating through their own limited company under a franchise agreement, tribunals will closely examine whether this reflects the true relationship — if the individual is genuinely in business on their own account with no obligation to provide personal service to the franchisor, they will lack employment status.

Legal authorities cited

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5Anglian Windows Ltd (t/a Anglian Home Improvements) v Webb [2023] EAT 138Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Limited [2022] EAT 91Plastic Omnium Automotive Ltd v Horton [2023] EAT 85Leeds City Council v Woodhouse [2010] EWCA Civ 410Harrods Ltd v Remick and others [1998] ICR 156Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.230(1)ERA 1996 s.230(3)(b)EqA 2010 s.83(2)(a)EqA 2010 s.41

Case details

Case number
3201663/2023
Decision date
18 June 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Planet Leasing Limited
Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Sales Executive
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →