Miss T Tyrell v Skylark Solutions Ltd. and 1 other — 2024

This was a public preliminary hearing on 13 December 2024 before Employment Judge S Shore. The tribunal’s task was to determine the claimant’s employment, worker, and self-employed status for the purposes of the claim against Skylark Solutions Ltd, with the second respondent not attending. The tribunal considered the documentary evidence and the parties’ witness statements, and applied the balance of probabilities standard to disputed facts.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the first respondent under section 230(1) ERA 1996, but was an employee under section 83 EqA 2010 and a worker under section 230(3) ERA 1996 and section 43K ERA 1996. In reaching that conclusion, it noted that there was no written agreement, no document describing the claimant as an employee or worker, and no contract terms produced. The claimant had described herself as self-employed in the ET1 attachment, invoiced for her work, was paid gross without deductions for tax or National Insurance, and was responsible for her own tax and NI.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had some features pointing away from an employment relationship and towards working arrangements of a more limited kind: she never substituted other door staff, was not paid sick pay, had no written claim for holiday pay, and was free to work for other organisations. At the same time, it accepted that the first respondent briefed her about the work, provided her with a radio and hi-viz jacket, and that she worked consistent days from November 2023, though not consistent hours. The tribunal found there was no mutuality of obligation, because the claimant could refuse work and the respondent did not have to offer work.

The claim, referred to in the judgment as 'UDL', was struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it once it had concluded that the claimant was not an employee under the ERA definition. The judgment cites Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, Uber BV v Aslam, Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority, Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith, and Ter-Berg v Simply Smile Manor House Ltd in its discussion of the status tests.