Ms Agnes Olawepo v Combined Service Provider Limited and 4 others — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing concerned principally with whether the Claimant was a contract worker for the purposes of Equality Act 2010, s.41 in relation to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents, and with applications based on alleged inadequate particularisation. The First and Second Respondents accepted that they were principals for s.41 purposes. The Tribunal held that the Third Respondent was also a principal because it made cleaning work available at the vaccination centre, benefited directly from the Claimant's work, and had a degree of control over the specific cleaning tasks, even if exercised indirectly.

The Tribunal held that the Fourth Respondent was not a principal. Although NHS England had overall responsibility for the vaccination programme and may have indirectly benefited from cleaning standards being met, it did not operate the vaccination centre, there was no evidence that its staff worked at the site, and the Claimant was not in any meaningful sense supplied to it. The claims against the Fourth Respondent were therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal was not persuaded that the Claimant's lack of precision in particularising her claims arose from unwillingness to provide information. It declined to strike out the claim, or any part of it, on the basis of inadequate particularisation and declined to make a deposit order on that basis. Instead, the Claimant was given a further and final opportunity to clarify her case. Time-limit issues, costs, the Claimant's own applications, and other applications not reached were left for a further hearing if pursued.