Claimant v Costain Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of either respondent. The tribunal found no contract of employment existed, express or implied. The claimant's evidence was unreliable, he gave contradictory accounts, and the documentary evidence did not support his assertions. The tripartite agreement he relied upon did not exist.
The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker under s.230 ERA 1996, therefore had no standing to bring a claim for unlawful deduction from wages under s.13. No contract of employment or worker contract existed with either respondent.
Facts
The claimant claimed he was employed under a tripartite contract between himself, Costain, and Mactech as a nuclear quality assurance engineer from April to October 2023 at £30/hour. He claimed £28,800 in unpaid wages after Costain allegedly refused to sign off timesheets. In fact, a tripartite agreement existed between Pretium Resourcing, ME Global Resources, and Costain — the claimant was not party to it. The claimant had signed an agreement for work-finding services with ME Global and was to be employed via umbrella company Brookson One. He never obtained security clearance, was never issued a laptop, was refused site access, and could not demonstrate he had done any work. He had three previous unsuccessful tribunal claims on similar employment status issues (2016, 2018, 2021) and a 2007 conviction for blackmail and perverting the course of justice.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of either respondent and dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant had acted vexatiously and unreasonably by sending over 140 emails to one respondent and 170 to the other, many threatening in tone, despite cost warnings. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay costs totalling £27,480.16 (£19,889.50 to respondent 1, £7,590.66 to respondent 2).
Practical note
Tribunals will rigorously scrutinise employment status claims where complex contractual arrangements exist; vexatious conduct including voluminous threatening correspondence will attract costs orders even against litigants in person, especially where they have prior tribunal experience and have ignored cost warnings.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1304006/2023
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Costain Limited
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Nuclear engineer in quality assurance
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No