Mrs S Jenkins v Ms Jules Dawson and 5 others — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Mrs S Jenkins’s claim against all six respondents because she was neither an employee nor a worker within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. She provided live-in care for the mother of the five individual respondents from 24 April 2023 until she left on 5 June 2024. The hearing concerned her employment status and the identity of any employer or contracting respondent. The tribunal found that her contract, signed on 6 April 2023, was with Ms Jules Dawson alone. The other siblings acted as Ms Dawson’s agents when making payments and dealing with the claimant; there was no contractual relationship with them individually.

At Home Care Group Limited introduced the claimant to the family. The tribunal found that its registration terms had not been brought to her attention and did not bind her. Looking at the actual relationship, however, the company neither paid nor owed payment to her, and she neither performed nor owed work to it. Its suggested rate and template contract did not bind the claimant and Ms Dawson to those terms. The six-week reduction available on its £4,000 introduction fee concerned the introduction arrangement and was not a probationary period imposed on the claimant. She was neither its employee nor its worker.

The tribunal assessed the true relationship rather than treating the contract’s description of self-employment as decisive. It rejected the claimant’s argument that she had to accept the terms without negotiation: she had secured triple pay at Christmas and a night-call fee. Unlike the circumstances considered in Autoclenz, the tribunal found no imbalance in bargaining power against her. She was an experienced carer with contacts who could provide cover, while the family had limited experience and relied on her services. Her own approach to the arrangement also supported self-employment, although the parties’ views were not determinative.

The claimant had a genuine, conditional right to send substitutes. The arrangement envisaged year-round care from her and her nominated carers, with the timing and length of her absences largely within her control. The family could check a substitute’s suitability and reasonably object, including where a proposed carer could not drive for a four-week placement. Those safeguards were consistent with substitution in a role involving unsupervised care of a vulnerable adult. The family’s direct payment of substitutes did not outweigh the practical arrangements. Applying the dominant-feature approach to personal service, the tribunal found that she was not obliged to perform the work personally. This prevented both employee and worker status.

The tribunal also found insufficient control to establish employment. The claimant used her professional judgment to organise care and daily activities. The family’s messages generally concerned minor requests or suggestions, and family members checked whether proposed visits fitted her plans. Checks on spending and attention to safeguarding concerns did not establish control or supervision of her work. Her ability to conduct a three-day video hearing in another tribunal case while providing care further supported the finding that she managed her own time.