Case 2409756/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Matthews v Razors Edge Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409756/2020
- Decision date
- 11 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to determine the claimant’s employment status after her working arrangement changed in July 2017 from employee to chair renter. The claimant had started work for the respondent in 2007, moved to a different salon in 2015, and in 2017 agreed to change the way she was paid after being told she would be around £600 per month better off. The respondent argued that she was self-employed, or at least a limb (b) worker, but the Tribunal ultimately held that she remained an employee.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only: the Tribunal held that the claimant was an employee within s.230(1) ERA 1996 and not merely a self-employed contractor or limb (b) worker. No substantive unfair dismissal, wages, holiday pay, or discrimination claims were determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.230 ERA 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Bates van Winkelhof
- Pimlico Plumbers substitution principles
- Carmichael mutuality of obligation
- White v Troutbeck control
- Autoclenz reality over form
- Uber realism and worldly-wise approach
- Hall v Lorimer multifactorial approach
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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.