Mr D Curwen of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on employment status before Employment Judge N J Roper on 27 February 2020. Mr Bennetts brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and discrimination on grounds of religion or belief against the Trustees of the St Just Free Church. The tribunal held that he was not an employee for Employment Rights Act purposes, but that he was within the wider definition of employment in section 83(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal accepted that the parties had an arrangement under which the claimant and his family occupied the Manse at a reduced rent of £300 per month, compared with a market rent of about £700, in return for ad hoc caretaking, cleaning, maintenance and supervisory duties. It relied in particular on Mr King’s letter of 2 December 2014, which described the arrangement as reduced rent in exchange for unspecified caretaking duties and said that the claimant was effectively being paid in kind rather than in cash. The tribunal also found that the claimant was already a self-employed builder, that there was no job description, no defined hours, no holiday or sick pay, and no express requirement for personal service.

Applying Autoclenz, Ready Mixed Concrete, Nethermere and Express and Echo Publications v Tanton, the tribunal found there was no mutuality of obligation, no irreducible minimum of obligation, no requirement for personal service, and insufficient direct control to establish a contract of service. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims. It nevertheless found that there was a contractual relationship for general ad hoc duties sufficient to amount to a contract personally to do work for the purposes of section 83(2)(a) EqA 2010, so the religion or belief discrimination claims could proceed to case management. No remedy was awarded at this stage.