Amanda Hobbs v South Eastern Tanker Services — 2022

Amanda Hobbs alleged that she had been employed by South Eastern Tanker Services from 4 August 2015 under an oral contract with Mr Gary Waddilove and that she was dismissed on 12 December 2019. The Respondent denied that she was ever employed, saying that the weekly payments made through payroll, together with pension contributions and other benefits, were financial support given to her as Mr Waddilove’s partner rather than wages for work done.

The tribunal set out the statutory definition of an employee in section 230(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered whether there was a contract of employment. It found the Claimant’s account of the alleged work to be lacking in detail and unsupported by documentary evidence. The Claimant said she carried out administration, errands, occasional paperwork and some site visits, but she was unable to give further particulars when asked.

The tribunal also considered the surrounding circumstances, including that the Claimant and Mr Waddilove had been in a personal relationship which ended in 2019, and that this relationship and its breakdown had not been mentioned in the Claimant’s claim documents or witness statement. It found that omission potentially indicative of a lack of candour. By contrast, it accepted that the Respondent’s account of payments and benefits being provided as financial support was plausible.

On the evidence as a whole, the tribunal held that the Claimant had not discharged the burden of proving that she entered into or worked under a contract of employment with the Respondent. It therefore concluded that the unfair dismissal complaint failed and held that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed.