Ms F Anibijuwon v Florence Agency — 2025

The claimant, Ms Anibijuwon, said that Florence Agency, correctly identified by the tribunal as Florence Staffing Limited, had unfairly dismissed her on 1 March 2024. The case was heard as a preliminary hearing to determine status. The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee within section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for want of jurisdiction.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was a registered nurse who used the respondent’s app to seek assignments from end user clients. She signed Terms of Engagement described as a contract for services, was free to work for others, was paid for assignments actually undertaken, and had no minimum hours or obligation on the respondent to provide work. The tribunal found that if the claimant did not seek an assignment she suffered no penalty other than not being paid, and that her access to the app was not restricted because she had refused assignments.

Applying the authorities it cited, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Uber v Aslam, Autoclenz and Ter-Berg, the tribunal found there was no sufficient mutuality of obligation or control to create an employment relationship. It noted that the respondent’s role was limited to compliance checks and that the end user client decided whether to book the claimant for a shift. The tribunal also rejected the claimant’s case that she received a monthly retainer, finding instead that she was paid only for assignments worked and that holiday pay and tax treatment did not alter the status analysis.

The tribunal recorded that the respondent restricted the claimant’s access to the app in January 2024 after medication-related concerns and later revoked access on 1 March 2024, but those facts did not change the status conclusion. The claimant’s amendment application, including a reference to whistleblowing, was left outstanding and was to be considered at a separate preliminary hearing.