Mr Steven Toolis v Bradbury House Limited — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on Mr Steven Toolis's employment status as at 30 June 2022. The tribunal held that he remained an employee of Bradbury House Limited after 1 September 2021 and therefore was also a worker for the period in question. On that basis, it confirmed jurisdiction to hear the claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay/breach of contract, and unauthorised deductions from wages insofar as they related to matters arising between 1 September 2021 and 30 June 2022.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had moved from an employment contract ending on 31 August 2021 to consultancy agreements from 1 September 2021, but found that the substance of the relationship did not materially change. It found that he continued to do substantially the same commissioning work, that the consultancy arrangements were intended to preserve the working relationship after difficulties with Polly Roach, and that the claimant only agreed to the new structure because the alternative was that he would stop working for the respondent.

The tribunal rejected the submission that the consultancy wording reflected the real position. It found there was mutuality of obligation during the term of the agreement, that the claimant was obliged to provide personal service, and that the substitution clause did not reflect reality because any substitute would have had to satisfy suitability criteria, including DBS checks. It also relied on the fact that the claimant continued to receive holiday pay and sick pay, used the respondent's phone, laptop and credit card, and was paid on a basis intended to match his previous salary.

The tribunal considered the third-party invoices to Bristol City Council and NHS Kernow CCG, but found they were closely related to the work he was doing for the respondent and had been submitted with Neil Bradbury's agreement. It concluded that Bradbury House Limited and Lansdowne Care Services Limited were not the claimant's clients or customers. The tribunal did not determine the illegality / IR35 point at this hearing and directed the respondent to confirm whether it wished to raise illegality as a defence and to provide an amended response if so.