Ms C J Owen v J and U Services Limited and 3 others — 2023

The tribunal heard the case at Birmingham West over three days in June 2025 and first decided the claimant's status against R1 and R2, including whether she was an employee or worker for the purposes of section 230 ERA 1996 and section 43K ERA 1996. It applied the Ready Mixed Concrete and Byrne Bros approach, and also referred to Uber BV v Aslam when considering the proper starting point for status analysis.

It found the relationship was a domestic and family arrangement rather than a commercial employment relationship. The claimant had worked on the land and helped pursue Mr James's vision, but she was free to assist as and when she wanted, was not on a payroll, had no induction, no job description, no agreed hours, no agreed rate of pay, and was not subject to direction or control from R1 or R2. The tribunal found there was no mutuality of obligation and no intention to create legal relations. It accepted that the three payments of £20,000 were advances against project expenses rather than wages.

The tribunal also found that the claimant's evidence about Fenton Fields Limited and HMRC undermined her reliability, including accounts and payroll material showing £48,000 salary figures that sat inconsistently with her case that she had not been employed by R1 or R2. It rejected her attempt to characterise the payments as salary and treated the evidence as consistent with her acting in her own right in a family project, later through Fenton Fields Limited. On those findings, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed, the notice pay claim was dismissed, and the holiday pay claim was dismissed. No award was made.