Case 2301610/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mortimer v 360globalnet Ltd Open Preliminary Hearing — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301610/2021
- Decision date
- 21 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mortimer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on employment status. The claimant had worked through Claven Holdings from 1 August 2014 as a field agent on DLG WYi5 work, and the respondent subcontracted the information-collection part of its service to Claven on 1 December 2014. After lockdown the work moved to the D.A.V.E. virtual system, and on 22 September 2020 the respondent ended the Claven arrangement and offered the field agents direct contracts. The claimant signed the respondent's standard documents on 6 October 2020 and began working directly from 8 October 2020.
The tribunal held that before 8 October 2020 there was no express or implied contract between the claimant and the respondent, so he was not an employee in that period. It treated the earlier arrangement as a tripartite agency/end-user relationship and rejected the argument that the move to D.A.V.E. created an implied contract with the respondent.
From 8 October 2020, the tribunal found there was an express contract but not a contract of employment. It accepted mutuality only for each accepted assignment, found that the claimant had to perform the work personally, and held that once a job was accepted the respondent controlled the process, timescales and compliance with the WYi5 and D.A.V.E. procedures. Even so, the intermittent nature of the work, the claimant's own equipment and tax arrangements, the limited integration, and the parties' stated intentions meant he was not an employee.
Applying section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996, and alternatively the extended worker provisions in section 43K(1)(a), the tribunal held that from 8 October 2020 the claimant was a worker and could pursue the protected-disclosure detriment claim. Because he was not an employee, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A were struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The detriment claim under section 47B was left for the final hearing, and no remedy was awarded in this preliminary decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996 was struck out because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear that claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996, pleaded by reference to making a protected disclosure, was struck out for the same jurisdictional reason because the claimant was not an employee. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The section 47B protected-disclosure detriment claim was not determined on the merits at this hearing. The tribunal held that from 8 October 2020 the claimant was a worker of the respondent, so the detriment claim could proceed to the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Ready Mixed Concrete
- James v Greenwich London Borough Council
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP
- Somerville
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
- Cotswold Developments Construction Ltd v Williams
- Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
- Keppel Seghers UK Ltd v Hinds
- McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Trust
- s.230(3)(b) worker test
- s.43K extended worker test
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.