In person For the v Mr M Wint, Director — 2019

The claimant, a private hire vehicle driver, brought claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay against Cmm2 Transfers Ltd. The case turned on his status. The tribunal heard that new drivers could be offered salaried employee or self-employed arrangements, but found that the claimant elected to be self-employed and expected to be self-employed. It also found that he did not comply with directions, provided no witness statement or schedule of loss, and that the evidence at hearing came mainly from the respondent.

On the facts, the tribunal preferred Mr Wint's evidence on the working relationship. It found that the claimant was free to choose when to work, could decline work, could turn his phone off and stop being contacted, could work for other companies, and had no minimum hours or obligation to accept any particular amount of work. The respondent's control was described as minimal. Requirements such as wearing a tie, white shirt, dark suit or coat, and using placards for tour operators were treated as consistent with service expectations rather than employee control. The tribunal also noted that the claimant accepted some risk in relation to the vehicle and that he retained the car when he was not working.

Applying section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal held that the claimant was never an employee and was also not a worker. It found there was no mutuality of obligation and that the irreducible minimum requirements for a contract of employment were not present. Although the claimant carried out the driving work personally, the tribunal concluded that the respondent was a client or customer of the claimant's self-employed driving business. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the claims, and both the unlawful deduction from wages claim and the holiday pay claim were dismissed.