Miss Carol Hughes v Mr. Mark Coward — 2019

At the public preliminary hearing on 4 October 2019, the tribunal dismissed the respondent's application to strike out the claim for alleged non-compliance with directions. The judge held that the directions relied on were for the full merits hearing, not this preliminary hearing, and noted that the respondent had not complied with the directions either.

The tribunal then determined the preliminary issue of status. It found that Miss Carol Hughes had worked for Mr Coward from 10 January 2011 to 8 August 2018 under a contract, with remuneration taking the form of reduced rent and then rent-free accommodation. The judge accepted that she was required to do the cleaning, was told which properties and days to clean, used the respondent's materials or a small payment for bleach, had only limited occasional substitution with her niece and needed the respondent's permission, and did not clean for anyone else.

Applying the Ready Mixed Concrete three conditions, section 230(1) and section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the personal service and substitution principles discussed in Pimlico Plumbers, the tribunal found sufficient control, mutuality of obligation and personal service. It also relied on the respondent's August 2018 letters, including the reference describing her as having worked as a property manager for over 10 years, and concluded that she was an employee and therefore also a worker. The listed hearing for 25 and 26 November 2019 was to proceed to the substantive claims.