Mr Brian Bishop (the claimant’s father) For the v Mr Peter Maratos of Peninsula — 2023

The tribunal heard the case as a preliminary issue on employment status. It found that the claimant, an experienced hair stylist, and Mrs McPhail set up the salon together and intended the arrangement to be a partnership, although there was no written partnership agreement. The claimant worked with Mrs McPhail on the premises, branding and products, was treated by employees as one of the owners, and did not have a contract of employment. The tribunal accepted that the claimant did not initially contribute funds, that Mrs McPhail met the start-up costs, and that the claimant received one transfer of £200 described as wages, which the tribunal treated as shorthand rather than proof of wages. The parties also discussed future dividends and the claimant’s possible later contribution to the business.

The tribunal found that relations deteriorated in April 2022, including after a discussion said to have occurred between the parties' husbands about whether the claimant was an employee and whether she would need to invest £10,000 to be a partner. The claimant challenged her status the next day. The tribunal accepted that Mrs McPhail denied the claimant was an employee, but found no evidence that steps were taken to end the partnership or change the claimant’s status. The claimant asked on 28 April 2022 for confirmation of whether she was a partner or employee and chased again on 13 May 2022, but no response was given. The claimant left the business in May 2022.

Applying section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Autoclenz/Ready Mixed Concrete approach, the tribunal held that there was no contract of employment and no worker contract. It found no irreducible minimum of obligation, no contractual obligation to perform services personally, no client or customer relationship, and concluded that the arrangement was a partnership to establish the business for mutual profit. On that basis the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the breach of contract or holiday pay claims, and all claims were dismissed. The reasons also record that no compensation was awarded.