Mr M Bell v Sky UK Limited — 2023

The preliminary hearing concerned employment status, worker status, the extended protected disclosure worker definition, a withdrawn amendment application concerning the right to be accompanied, and the respondent's application for strike out or deposit orders. The tribunal found there was no express written contract between the claimant and Sky UK Limited, and that the contractual arrangements through Experis, Oliver Bernard and Sapphire were genuine and accurately represented the relationship between the parties.

The tribunal held that it was not necessary to imply a contract of employment or other contract between the claimant and the respondent. The claimant was therefore not an employee and was not a limb (b) worker under s.230 ERA 1996. His unfair dismissal claim and protected disclosure detriment claims based on employee or s.230 worker status were dismissed.

For the protected disclosure provisions, the tribunal found that the claimant worked for the respondent, had been introduced and supplied through intermediary entities, and that the terms of the engagement were in practice substantially determined by the respondent and the intermediaries rather than by the claimant. The claimant was therefore a worker under s.43K ERA 1996 for protected disclosure purposes, and that remaining protected disclosure detriment claim was to proceed to further case management.

The tribunal refused to strike out the remaining protected disclosure detriment claim or make a deposit order. It found that the disclosures and detriments required further particularisation and judicial case management before prospects of success could properly be assessed.