Mrs J Cammack v Quantum Logistics Limited — 2019

At a preliminary public hearing in Lincoln on 22 July 2019, Employment Judge Blackwell determined two status issues: whether Mrs J Cammack was disabled at the material time and whether she was an employee or worker of Quantum Logistics Limited. The tribunal noted that the underlying claims needed further particularisation and that those matters were not being resolved at this hearing.

On disability, the respondent conceded that Mrs Cammack was disabled by hearing loss, relying on an audiometric report showing profound hearing loss in the right ear and severe loss in the left ear. The tribunal accepted that finding under section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. It rejected disability by reason of depression and anxiety for the relevant period from 7 December 2015 to 25 May 2018, finding insufficient evidence that the earlier bereavement reaction amounted to a substantial, long-term adverse effect during that period; the medical evidence supporting that case largely post-dated the relationship with the respondent.

On employment status, applying the Readymix Concrete and Autoclenz approach, the tribunal found control, personal service and a regular provision of work in exchange for pay, including payments to Carolan Functions totalling £27,157.32 between 18 December 2015 and 7 August 2018. It nevertheless held that the wider arrangements were inconsistent with a contract of employment, relying on the tax treatment, the use of Carolan Functions invoices, the claimant's understanding of the self-employed arrangement, and Mr Johnson's evidence, which it preferred. Mrs Cammack was therefore not an employee and could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, although she was a worker within section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

For Equality Act purposes, the tribunal held under section 83(2)(a) and Givraj v Hashwani that the arrangement was a dependent work relationship and that Mrs Cammack was entitled to the protection of the Equality Act because she was employed under a contract personally to do work. No monetary award was made in this judgment.