Case 2404647/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Crocombe v Equity Release Supermarket Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404647/2022
- Decision date
- 29 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Crocombe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 26 March and 24-25 April 2024, Employment Judge Slater found that Ms L Crocombe worked for Equity Release Supermarket Ltd from 28 January 2020 to 24 February 2022. The respondent ran an equity release advice business, paid a fixed fee of £995 for advice, and had first contracted with the claimant personally before moving the arrangement to her personal services company. The claimant also entered a loan agreement for £7,500 and signed a side letter on 24 March 2020 in which she undertook personally to procure performance by the consultant company and accepted restrictive covenants.
On the worker and Equality Act issue, the tribunal held that the second written contract with the PSC did not reflect the reality of the relationship. It found that the side letter showed a direct agreement between the claimant and the respondent for her personal services, that the substitution clause was conditional and in practice tightly limited, and that the respondent expected the claimant to be available for at least some regular leads. The tribunal therefore found that she was a worker within the Employment Rights Act 1996 and an employee for Equality Act 2010 purposes throughout the engagement.
On the Employment Rights Act employee test, however, the tribunal found that the relationship did not amount to a contract of employment. It held that mutuality of obligation was limited, the respondent exercised only limited control over how the claimant carried out the work, and the claimant provided her own equipment and paid a monthly fee for use of the respondent’s systems. The tribunal therefore found that she was not an employee within the ERA, so the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal/breach of contract complaints were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The remaining complaints of disability discrimination, sex discrimination, victimisation, unlawful deductions from wages and holiday pay were listed to proceed to a final hearing in June 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this complaint as wrongful dismissal/breach of contract. It was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
- Plastic Omnium Automotive Ltd v Horton
- Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd
- Catt v English Table Tennis Association
- Brook Street Bureau Ltd v Dacas
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.