Claimant v DAM Model Management — 2024

The claimant did not attend in person throughout, although the tribunal proceeded in his absence under Rule 47 after considering his emails and brief CVP attendance. The respondent gave oral evidence from Mr Reese and produced a contract, email correspondence and an invoice. The claimant produced no documentary or other evidence beyond the assertions in his ET1 to show employee or worker status or any entitlement to the wages claimed.

The tribunal found that on 1 April 2022 the claimant signed a six-month contract as a model to be represented exclusively by the respondent, which was a model agency. He undertook a small number of assignments, including one for £200 on 16 August 2022, and the respondent deducted 25% of the client fee and paid him the remaining 75% in accordance with the contract. The claimant ended the arrangement by email dated 16 October 2022, saying he did not wish to extend the fixed six-month contract.

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant had ever been employed by, or worked for, the respondent in any capacity other than as a model represented by the agency for the six-month period ending in October 2022. It recorded that the claimant described himself in his emails as being a model with and signed to the agency, and that Mr Reese denied that he had ever been an employee or done internal work for the respondent.

The tribunal concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant had failed to show he was an employee or worker for the respondent or that he had any entitlement to the unpaid wages claimed. It therefore held that the claim for unpaid wages in the sum of £8,805.00 was not well-founded and failed.