R Beadle v Capital Computer Care Ltd — 2023

At the preliminary hearing on 7 June 2023, Employment Judge Burge considered whether Mr Beadle was an employee, worker, or office holder of Capital Computer Care Ltd. The tribunal found that Mr Beadle and Mr Tomlins were old friends who started the business together, that Mr Beadle had no contract of employment, and that he was paid a nominal PAYE amount of £624 a month plus dividends. The tribunal also found that by 2015 he was working largely from home, was not involved in day-to-day work, and was not subject to the respondent's staff handbook in the way its employees were.

Applying s.230 ERA 1996 and the authorities cited in the reasons, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Uber, Pimlico Plumbers, Sejpal, Neufeld, Dugdale and Bradley Rainford, the tribunal held that there was no contract of service and no other contract requiring personal performance. It found that Mr Beadle acted in his capacity as a director, worked the hours he chose, could have appointed someone else to do the work if needed, and could also have appointed an alternate director under the 2016 articles. On that basis, he was neither an employee nor a worker.

Because he was not an employee or worker, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and holiday pay complaints for lack of jurisdiction. For Equality Act purposes, it held that he was not in 'employment' within s.83 Equality Act 2010, but that he did hold an office within s.49 Equality Act 2010. The judgment therefore records that the age discrimination claims continued. The issue of illegality did not arise.