Mr P Horton v Plastic Omnium Automotive Ltd — 2021

The Tribunal held that Mr Horton was not an employee within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but that he was a worker within section 230(3). It accepted that he was integrated into Plastic Omnium Automotive Ltd’s business over more than eight years, working on Jaguar Land Rover projects, using a company pass, laptop, desk and email, reporting in the same way as other programme managers, working regular hours, taking holiday in line with employees, and working exclusively for PO. The Tribunal concluded that the written ProMan agreement reflected the true agreement between the parties and was inconsistent with a contract of employment.

On the worker issue, the Tribunal found that Mr Horton was subordinate and dependent rather than carrying on a business on his own account for a client or customer. It relied on the approach in cases including Autoclenz, Uber, Byrnes Bros and Cotswold Developments, and found that PO was not Mr Horton’s client or customer for section 230(3) purposes. The Tribunal noted that he had been approached about becoming an employee in late 2015 or early 2016 on terms said to include a salary of £65,000 to £75,000 plus bonus, car allowance and pension contribution, but it preferred the evidence of Mr Oldham that Mr Horton was not interested in that offer.

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s illegality argument. Applying the approach in Enfield Technical Services v Payne, it found there was neither miscategorisation nor any false representation, and that Mr Horton had made tax returns on the basis of being self-employed. It also found that PO understood throughout that it was operating under the January 2011 agreement and that there was no evidence Mr Horton represented otherwise, so neither the contract nor its performance was illegal.

The only monetary order recorded was by consent: the Respondent was to pay £28,500 in respect of the unlawful deduction from wages claims. The judgment does not break that figure down further or record a separate tribunal assessment of the deductions.