Mr K Maloney v Horizons Plus Ltd — 2022

Mr Maloney brought claims for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract. At the start of the hearing he accepted that he did not have two years' continuous employment and withdrew the unfair dismissal complaint, so that claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal therefore went on to determine employment status only.

The tribunal found that the respondent had contracted with Pinnacle Support Services Group Limited, a company of which Mr Maloney was a director and shareholder, rather than with him personally. It accepted that he had proposed using Belmont Road through Pinnacle, corresponded from a Pinnacle email address, referred to staff he hired and paid, and discussed the respondent making payments to an account it reasonably believed was a Pinnacle business account. The tribunal treated the lone bank shift in November 2020 as background only.

Applying section 230 ERA 1996 and the Ready Mixed Concrete line of authority, the tribunal held that Mr Maloney was not an employee because there was no contract between him and the respondent and, even if there had been one, there was no requirement for personal service and the other features of the arrangement were inconsistent with a contract of employment. It also held that he was not a worker under section 230(3)(b) because, apart from the bank shift, he was acting as Pinnacle's agent and the respondent was a client of Pinnacle's business undertaking. The unauthorised deductions and breach of contract complaints were therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and no monetary award was made.