Claimant v Weir v Motorpoint Ltd — 2022

This was a reserved judgment after a preliminary hearing on 22 and 23 February 2022 before Employment Judge B Hodgson sitting alone. The claimant had brought claims of unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination, and the issue decided was whether he was an employee for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 83 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Mr Terrence Burns and Mr John Roche for the respondent, and found the claimant to be the more credible witness on the disputed matters.

The tribunal found that the claimant had worked for Motorpoint's Burnley site for over sixteen years, ultimately full-time and exclusively, and that he worked personally on the respondent's premises in an allocated bay. He had no written contract, no access to the respondent's internal systems, and no right to send a substitute. Although he was paid gross against invoices and used his own vehicle, insurance, tools and materials, the tribunal held that these factors were not conclusive against employee status. It accepted that the respondent allocated the work, that the claimant had no choice over the jobs he carried out, and that the arrangement involved mutuality of obligation.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's evidence that the claimant had been told he must take on additional staff if he wished to continue working, finding that no such requirement had been communicated. It also rejected the suggestion that the claimant arranged holiday cover by bringing in another worker, finding instead that the respondent organised its own cover. Applying the factors identified in O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc and the need to assess control, personal performance and mutuality of obligation, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further held that, even if that conclusion were wrong, he would still fall within the wider Equality Act 2010 definition of employment as a contract personally to do work.

The judgment did not determine the substantive unfair dismissal or age discrimination complaints. It ended by directing that the matter be listed for a further preliminary hearing to consider case management orders and to list the case for final hearing.