Claimant v Wheel Medic Ltd — 2020

The tribunal, sitting at Leeds by video link on 16 October 2020 before Employment Judge R S Drake, found that Mr Nicholas Cartwright and Mr Ryan Yates had a long-standing social friendship before any commercial relationship began in January 2019. The evidence showed a high degree of informality throughout that arrangement. The tribunal found there was no written contract and no common understanding that the respondent was obliged to provide work or that the claimant was obliged to accept it on each occasion.

On the facts found, the claimant worked 109 days, had 35 booked days cancelled, and said there were a further 36 booked days he did not work, making 180 days in total. The respondent had paid him £18,500, which the tribunal calculated as equivalent to 231.25 days at the agreed rate of £80 per day. The tribunal accepted that, if work was not done on a booked day, the claimant would be paid £400 per week or £80 per day, but found that the payments made exceeded the amount due on the evidence before it.

Applying section 230 ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Express & Echo Publications v Tanton, Carmichael v National Power, Ready Mixed Concrete v MPNI, and Johnson Underwood v Montgomery, the tribunal found the claimant had not established employee status or worker status. It held there was no binding contract with mutual obligations, no clear agreement for personal service, and no evidence that the claimant was part of the respondent's organisation or restricted from working elsewhere.

The unlawful deductions claim under section 13 ERA 1996 therefore failed, as did the Working Time Regulations claim under regulations 13 and 13A. The tribunal also held that even if the claimant had been a worker, he had not shown that he was underpaid for the work done or that any holiday pay remained outstanding. Both claims were dismissed in full.