Mr Samuel Prempeh v Regency Security Group Ltd and 1 other — 2020

The tribunal reconsidered its earlier judgment of 20 July 2020 after the claimant complained that he had not had an opportunity to make representations. It confirmed the dismissal of the claim. The hearing on 24 November 2020 was remote. The claimant did not attend, but the tribunal took his written representations and ET1 into account, and it also heard from Ms Averis for the second respondent, who provided the payment record.

The tribunal found it unlikely that the claimant had been an employee of either respondent. It found that he had worked a single shift as either a worker or on a self-employed basis for the first respondent, and that the second respondent was only the payroll company administering payment. The claimant had completed a form on 6 January confirming he had read and agreed to sole trader terms and had appointed the second respondent to act as his agent for invoicing and payment purposes only.

On the evidence, the tribunal found the claimant was entitled to a gross payment of £139.99 for the shift worked on 31 December 2019. The first respondent had instructed a £13 client deduction, and the second respondent deducted a further £5.87 accountancy fee. The claimant was paid £121.13 net. The tribunal noted that the claimant had referred to different expected gross figures of £150 and £140, but found there was no contract for either of those net sums and that representations made by a friend did not bind the respondents.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to prove he was an employee of either respondent and failed to prove that an unlawful deduction of £18.87 had been made from his wages. It found the claimant had been paid correctly, and the claim was dismissed.