Mr J Morrell v Manchester Money Ltd — 2021

This judgment concerned a preliminary issue only: whether Mr Morrell was a worker or self-employed in his arrangement with Manchester Money Ltd. After an earlier hearing had to be adjourned for case-management reasons, the tribunal heard evidence on 28 February 2022 and stated that it was not determining the claimant’s post-termination money claims in this decision.

The tribunal found that the written contract and the practical operation of the relationship pointed to Mr Morrell being part of the respondent’s business rather than running an independent business of his own. It relied on wording describing him as a "Registered Individual of the company", the respondent’s right to vary remuneration, restrictions on the institutions and products he could use, requirements to work on the company’s terms of business, compliance standards and CPD, control over advertising and literature, and clauses about client ownership and post-termination restrictions.

The evidence of Mr Barker and the sales-process documents was treated as showing a significant degree of control and integration. Although Mr Morrell could choose which leads to follow, the tribunal found that the respondent expected him to make a meaningful financial contribution to the business, set minimum standards and KPIs, and direct the way he handled cases. The tribunal also found that the work was performed personally and that there was mutuality of obligation in the sense that the respondent needed to provide sufficient leads and the claimant needed to convert enough of them to satisfy the respondent’s expectations.

Applying section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Carmichael, Montgomery, Windle, Clyde & Co v Bates van Winkelhof, Byrne Brothers, James v Redcats, Allonby, Jivraj and Pimlico Plumbers, the tribunal held that Mr Morrell was a worker throughout the relationship and was not operating his own independent business. The judgment therefore upheld the worker-status issue, but it did not make any award of money.