Mr David Stephenson of Counsel For v Respondent — 2017

The claimant applied for interim relief after alleging that her dismissal was because she made protected disclosures about the respondent's failure to treat her as an employee, deduct tax and national insurance at source, and regularise her PAYE position. The tribunal applied the Taplin v Shippam Limited test and asked whether she had a pretty good chance of succeeding at the final hearing, without finally deciding the merits of the underlying complaint.

The judge held that the claimant had pretty good prospects of showing that she was an employee, notwithstanding the 23 March 2007 engagement letter describing a management fee of £34,000 per year and stating that she would be responsible for her own tax. The judgment records the later correspondence about her tax status, the involvement of CTM and HMRC, and the claimant's complaints that PAYE, itemised pay statements and lawful deductions had not been put in place.

The tribunal also concluded that the claimant had made disclosures on numerous occasions of material tending to show failures to comply with legal obligations and that, on the face of the evidence, she could reasonably believe those disclosures were in the public interest. It considered that the dismissal letter of 19 May 2017, together with the surrounding chronology, made it likely that the dismissal was because of the disclosures.

Because the respondent was unwilling to reinstate or re-engage the claimant, the tribunal made an order for continuation of the contract under section 130 ERA 1996. It directed that the contract continue until determination or settlement of the complaint and that monthly payment be based on an annual salary of £37,000, treated as gross with deductions for tax and national insurance through PAYE pending final determination.