Mr S Emmins v Lazerbeam Fire & Security Ltd — 2020

The Claimant, Mr S Emmins, worked for Lazerbeam Fire & Security Ltd as Managing Director from 24 June 2017 until February 2019. He said he was an employee entitled to three months' notice and reimbursement of expenses; the Respondent said he was engaged as a self-employed consultant through his company, SGE Security Consultancy Ltd. The tribunal treated the case as a breach of contract claim rather than an unlawful deduction from wages claim, because the notice pay and expenses claimed did not fall within the statutory definition of wages.

The tribunal found that the written negotiations and the parties' conduct were more consistent with a contract for services than a contract of employment. It placed weight on the Claimant's own proposal to invoice through his company, the fact that invoices were issued monthly by SGE Security Consultancy Ltd, the absence of PAYE deductions, the draft contracts moving from employee wording to contractor wording, and the Claimant's autonomy in carrying out the role. The tribunal also accepted that the Respondent had limited day-to-day control over how the Claimant worked, and that the parties allowed the arrangement to operate in that way.

The tribunal accepted the Respondent's evidence that by August 2018 it had concerns about the Claimant's performance and that, after the meeting on 20 August 2018, the Claimant's remuneration was reduced and the arrangement continued on a six-month trial basis at a lower fee. It also accepted that further concerns arose in February 2019, leading to the Claimant's resignation letter dated 11 February 2019. The tribunal found that his engagement ended on 24 February 2019, with 22 February 2019 being his last day of work.

Applying the statutory definition in section 230 ERA 1996 and the factors identified in the case law it cited, including the mutuality and control analysis and the multiple-factor approach, the tribunal concluded that Mr Emmins was not an employee. As a result, it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim. It therefore dismissed the claim and made no findings on the alleged notice entitlement, the £3,000 expenses issue, the illegality point raised by the Respondent, or the Respondent's counterclaim.