Case 2204264/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Satsangi v White Clark Group Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204264/2019
- Decision date
- 30 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Satsangi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 22 September 2020, Employment Judge Quill sitting alone decided status issues arising from the claimant's engagement through Gateway Outsource Solutions Limited. The tribunal found that the claimant and the respondent had both intended there to be an intermediary between them, that the claimant signed the Gateway agreement knowing it made him an employee of Gateway, and that the respondent contracted with Gateway rather than directly with the claimant. The claimant worked for the respondent for 13 complete days at a day rate of £475, and was paid through Gateway, including a payment of £4,546.41 after the engagement ended.
Applying the authorities on written contracts, sham arrangements and implied contracts, including Snook, Autoclenz, James v Greenwich and The Aramis, the tribunal held that the written agreements between the claimant and Gateway, and between Gateway and the respondent, explained the relationship without any need to imply a direct contract between the claimant and the respondent. The tribunal found that the claimant turning up for work, taking instructions, using the respondent's equipment, and reporting absence directly to the respondent were all consistent with the Gateway arrangements. The June 2019 discussions and the respondent's letter of 25 June 2019 did not create a direct contract, and any failure by the respondent to follow the Gateway contract would at most have affected its contract with Gateway.
The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within s.230(1) ERA 1996, was not a worker within s.230(3) ERA 1996, and was not an employee within s.83(2) Equality Act 2010. It did, however, find that he was a contract worker within s.41 Equality Act 2010 and that he was a disabled person within s.6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. No monetary award was made in this judgment, which was confined to preliminary issues and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Preliminary issue judgment only. The tribunal found there was no direct contract between the claimant and the respondent, so the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent under the ERA 1996 and was not in employment under s.83(2) Equality Act 2010. The contractual arrangements with Gateway explained the parties' dealings. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue judgment only. The tribunal found the claimant was a contract worker under s.41 Equality Act 2010 and a disabled person at the relevant time within s.6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010, but it did not determine any discrimination liability or award. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Snook v London and West Riding Investment Ltd sham contract principle
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi
- James v Greenwich / The Aramis necessity test
- Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd
- Tilson v Alstom Transport
- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- s.83(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.41 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.