Case 2411299/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Roberts v Bridge Law Solicitors Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411299/2023
- Decision date
- 29 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs G Roberts, had been engaged by Bridge Law Solicitors Limited as a consultant litigation solicitor from 4 May 2021 to 29 August 2023. The tribunal heard the case as a preliminary issue on employment status. It considered the written consultancy agreement, the way the arrangement worked in practice, and whether the claimant was a worker for Working Time Regulations purposes and an employee for Employment Rights Act purposes.
The tribunal found that the express written agreement was between the claimant and Bridge Law Solicitors Limited, and it rejected the respondent's case that routing invoices through Coach & Legal Ltd meant the contract had become one with that company. It accepted that there was no new contract with Coach & Legal Ltd and that the invoicing arrangement was administrative rather than a novation. The tribunal also found that the agreement and the reality of the relationship pointed to personal service: there was no agreed right of substitution, and the claimant's husband's later role in preparing invoices did not alter the dominant character of the arrangement.
On the broader question under section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the tribunal held that the claimant was not carrying on a business undertaking on her own account and that the respondent was not her client or customer. It accepted that the claimant worked under supervision, was integrated into the respondent's litigation team on some files, had access to the office and systems, and worked regularly over an overarching relationship rather than as isolated engagements. It therefore concluded that she was a worker for Working Time Regulations purposes.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had conceded she was not an employee for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, any unfair dismissal claim could not succeed. There was no award of compensation or other monetary remedy because the judgment determined status only.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This was a preliminary status decision only. The claimant conceded that she was not an employee for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so any unfair dismissal claim could not proceed on the basis of employee status. The tribunal did not determine a merits or compensation issue on the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | This was a preliminary status decision only. The tribunal held that the claimant was a worker for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations 1998. No monetary award was made because the judgment decided status only. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Plastic Omnium Automotive v Horton
- Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd
- Pimlico Plumbers Limited v Smith
- Byrne Bros (Formwork) Ltd v Baird
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP
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.