Shivani Tandon (‘C1’) Second Claimant: Kiran Seghal (‘C2’) Third Claimant: Anita Handa (‘C3’) v Station Hotel Newcastle Limited (‘SHNL’) — 2024

At the reserved preliminary hearing on 25, 26 and 27 March and 17 April 2024, Employment Judge Sweeney decided whether Shivani Tandon, Kiran Seghal and Anita Handa were employees or workers of Station Hotel Newcastle Limited for the purposes of the pleaded claims. The tribunal held that Shivani and Anita had never been employees or workers within section 230 ERA 1996 or section 83 EqA 2010, and that Kiran was not an employee or worker at the time of the matters complained of. The pleaded breach of contract, redundancy, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction, working time and pregnancy/sex discrimination claims were therefore dismissed.

The tribunal found that SHNL was a family-owned hotel business in which members of the Handa family were placed on payroll at the direction of Arvan and/or Aran. The claimants received monthly payments and benefits such as cars, phones and private medical insurance, but there were no written contracts, job titles, induction, holiday arrangements or sickness arrangements. The judge found that payroll was used as a mechanism for providing money to family members rather than as payment made under contracts for work.

As to Shivani, the tribunal accepted that she did work on hotel projects, mainly in 2015 and 2016 and more limited thereafter, but found that she was free to choose whether to involve herself, had no agreed pay for work and was under no obligation to attend or perform work. The judge found no intention to create legal relations, no mutuality of obligation and no sufficient control to amount to employment or worker status. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that she had been on statutory or contractual maternity leave, finding that no such contractual arrangement existed.

As to Kiran, the tribunal found a genuine contract of employment existed when she worked as a receptionist on the rota at the Royal Station Hotel from about 2000 to 2009, with mutual obligations and control. However, after she moved to London in 2009 and stopped working, the tribunal found that that contract had ended. Her later payments through payroll were treated as family support rather than remuneration for ongoing work. By the time of the complaints in these proceedings, she was therefore not an employee or worker.

As to Anita, the tribunal found that she had helped in the family business before the SHNL payroll arrangement and later received payments from June 2019 on Arvan's instruction, but her later activity, including visits to care homes and hotel feedback, was voluntary and unconnected to any contractual obligation to SHNL. The judge found no offer and acceptance, no mutuality of obligation and no sufficient control, and treated her own description of the care home activity as volunteering.

Applying the statutory definitions in section 230 ERA 1996 and section 83 EqA 2010, and the authorities cited in the judgment including Uber BV v Aslam, Bates van Winkelhof, Ready Mixed Concrete, Dakin and Nethermere, the tribunal concluded that the payroll arrangements did not create employment or worker contracts for Shivani or Anita, and did not continue Kiran's earlier contract into the relevant period. The result was dismissal of all pleaded claims, with no monetary award.