Ms B Parcell v Mr Roderick Bloor — 2024

The tribunal substituted Mr Roderick Bloor as the correct respondent and found that the claimant’s contract was with him personally, not with Waterdale Business Group Ltd. It accepted the claimant’s evidence that Waterdale Business Group Ltd had never been mentioned to her when the work arrangement was agreed, and that Mr Bloor had spoken in terms of “I” and “we” when discussing the job, pay and working arrangements.

On status, the tribunal held that the claimant was an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that she had expressly agreed with Mr Bloor that she did not want to be self-employed and would be “put on the books”. The tribunal relied on the agreed minimum hours, hourly pay, personal service, work at the premises under Mr Bloor’s direction, the absence of invoices, and the way she was paid as “salary” through the business as consistent with an employment contract.

The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that she was owed £306 for unpaid wages and £144 for accrued holiday pay. It therefore upheld her complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to those sums. It also found that, when the claimant bought ingredients, Mr Bloor had agreed she could do so and would be reimbursed either personally or from petty cash, and that this was a term of the contract.

For the expenses claim, the tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that she had not been reimbursed £52 for ingredients and held that Mr Bloor was in breach of contract for failing to pay that amount. The judgment made no award for injury to feelings or interest, and the total sum ordered was £502.