Case 2204680/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Lord, of Counsel v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204680/2020
- Decision date
- 19 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Walker
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms C Lord, of Counsel
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 21, 22 April and 6 May 2021, Employment Judge N Walker considered whether Ms J Souliman was an employee, worker or self-employed contractor of Cred Investments Holdings Limited. The tribunal accepted that she had signed a contractor agreement in November 2019, that the agreement described her as an independent contractor, included a conditional substitution clause, and provided for invoice-based payment, while no fixed hours, place of work or holiday entitlement were stated. It also found that in practice she was paid monthly even when invoices had not yet been submitted.
Applying Ready Mixed Concrete, Autoclenz, White v Troutbeck, Pimlico Plumbers and Uber, the tribunal looked beyond the contract label to the practical reality. It found that the claimant had some integration into the fundraising team, including business cards, an email address, investor meetings and travel, and that there was some mutuality of obligation around the longer-term fundraising project. However, it held that the claimant largely organised her own diary, worked with considerable flexibility, and on occasions did not comply with Mr Carr-Harris’s requests in a way that was inconsistent with employer-like control. The tribunal also found that the title issues within the team were informal and not determinative of status.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not an employee. It held that the substitution provision was too restricted and uncertain to establish practical self-employment, but that the decisive point was the absence of the degree of control required for employment. For the worker analysis under section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996, the tribunal found that she undertook to perform services personally, was not in business on her own account, and that Cred Investments Holdings Limited was not a client or customer of any business she carried on. The judgment therefore recorded that Ms Souliman was a worker, and no monetary remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary status issue only: the tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee, but was a worker. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Autoclenz
- White v Troutbeck
- Pimlico Plumbers
- Uber
- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.83 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.