Ivaylo Atev v Fast Despatch Logistics Ltd — 2022

This reserved judgment dealt with preliminary matters rather than the substantive wages claim. The tribunal allowed the respondent's name to be amended from Fast Despatch Logistics (Peterborough) Limited to Fast Despatch Logistics Limited, applying Rule 34 and the overriding objective. It found that the correct entity had received and responded to the claim, that no confusion had been caused, and that refusing the amendment would cause the claimant to lose the opportunity to pursue the claim.

The tribunal then determined employment status. It found that Mr Atev worked under a services agreement dated 12 November 2020, that shifts were offered by rota, that drivers were not found to have been penalised for rejecting shifts, and that the contractual substitution right was limited in practice to drivers already approved by both the respondent and its client. Applying s230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 and the discussion of substitution in Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith, the tribunal concluded that the limited substitution arrangement was consistent with personal performance.

The tribunal also found that the claimant did not provide courier services to anyone else, was not in business on his own account, had no direct contact with the respondent's customers, and had no control over pay rate or delivery route. On that basis it concluded that the respondent was not a client or customer of a business undertaking carried on by the claimant, and held that he was a worker within the meaning of s230(3)(b).

The judgment did not decide whether there had been unauthorised deductions from wages or whether the claimant had been paid below the national minimum wage. It recorded that those issues, and any remedy, would be determined at a further hearing on 18 May 2022. No monetary award was made in this judgment.