Mr L Richards v 1 Unity Build and Repair Ltd 2 Waterfield Homes Ltd — 2021

At a preliminary hearing in Exeter on 9 and 10 November 2020, Employment Judge Smail determined the claimant's employment status. The claimant was a multi-trade carpenter who had been introduced to Mr Matt Conyers, worked on the respondent's properties, met at the respondent's office each day, took jobs from job sheets and completed timesheets. The judge found that Waterfield Homes Ltd was the true respondent and that Unity Build and Repair Ltd did not trade at the relevant time.

The tribunal held that between 22 October 2010 and 19 November 2018 the claimant was a worker within Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but not an employee within section 230(1) during that period. It accepted that the parties had genuinely intended a CIS/self-employed arrangement, that the agreement was not a sham, and distinguished Autoclenz v Belcher and Young and Woods Ltd v West on the facts. The claimant's main complaint during that period was that he was not being paid holiday pay.

The tribunal further found that Waterfield Homes Ltd started paying the claimant through payslips with effect from 20 November 2018, and that he became an employee of Waterfield Homes Ltd from that date until the effective date of termination on 18 July 2019. The proposed contract with Unity Build and Repair Ltd was not entered into. No remedy was determined because the hearing dealt only with status issues.