Mr F Oladejo v Premier Security 247 UK Ltd — 2021

At a preliminary hearing the tribunal found that Mr Oladejo was not an employee of Premier Security 247 UK Ltd at the material time, but a self-employed sub-contractor. That finding was based on the sub-contractor agreement, his use of his own accountant, indemnity insurance and travel expenses, and emails in which he said he wanted to remain self-employed. The tribunal preferred the evidence of Mr Cartledge and applied the employment-status approach in O'Kelly and Carmichael, including the need to look at the whole relationship and the 'irreducible minimum' for a contract of employment.

On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and the sick pay and holiday pay claims were dismissed as not well-founded. The tribunal found that the claimant had known he was self-employed and had wanted to continue in that status when employment was later discussed, and it rejected his evidence to the contrary.

The race discrimination complaints were treated as eight alleged incidents. The tribunal found that all but one were very considerably out of time, that the remaining 20 April 2020 allegation was not adequately particularised, and that the claimant had failed to comply with an earlier case-management order requiring proper particularisation. It concluded that all of the race discrimination claims had little reasonable prospect of success.

Because the claimant had not complied with the prior order, the tribunal made a deposit order under rule 6 of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure in relation to the race discrimination claims. It took account of his means, including universal credit of £650 per month and rent of £340 per month, and set the deposit at £50.