Mr M Holmes v H.A. Boulton (Flooring) Limited — 2025

The Tribunal heard a preliminary issue about employment status. It found that Mr Holmes was not an employee of H.A. Boulton (Flooring) Limited within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996 during the period from April 2013 to 29 January 2024, but that he was a worker for that period. The judge accepted that Mr Holmes had previously been an employee from 2007 to 2012, but found that when he returned in around April 2013 he agreed to work on a self-employed basis and that no trial period was agreed.

In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal accepted that Mr Holmes could turn down jobs, that the Respondent offered work on a project-by-project basis, and that pay was variable by job and sometimes negotiable. It found that there was no mutuality of obligation between the parties. The Tribunal also found that Mr Holmes provided personal service, worked as part of the Respondent’s business to end clients with whom the Respondent had contracts, and was subject to some control in relation to health and safety and job specifications, but that this was not enough to make him an employee. The judgment referred to Ready Mixed Concrete, Hall v Lorimer, Richards v Waterfield Homes Ltd, Uber v Aslam, and Bates van Winkelhof in its analysis.

As a result of the status findings, the complaints of unfair dismissal, failure to pay a redundancy payment, and breach of contract were dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine them. The judgment did not record any monetary award.