Miss N Agada v LPC Law Limited — 2021

At the 18-19 March 2021 hearing, Employment Judge Crosfill determined a preliminary issue arising from Miss N Agada's ET1 claims for protected disclosure detriment, pregnancy or maternity discrimination, and unpaid annual leave. The question decided was whether, on the facts, she was a worker for ERA 1996 and WTR 1998 purposes and "in employment" for Equality Act 2010 purposes.

The tribunal found that the claimant could decline work between assignments and was not under an ongoing obligation to accept jobs, but once she accepted an assignment she was contractually bound to carry it out. The limited substitution clause in the Advocate Service Level Agreement did not prevent personal service, because any substitute had to be another advocate on the same terms and the respondent could control or veto substitutions in practice.

Looking at the reality of the arrangement, the tribunal found that LPC Law selected and trained advocates, supervised their work through Advocacy Managers and written reports, set standard fees, required client contact and compliance with its guide, and integrated advocates into its advocacy business. It held that the respondent was not the claimant's client or customer, so she satisfied the section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996 worker test, was a worker under Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and was in employment for Equality Act 2010 purposes. No monetary remedy was awarded or determined in this judgment.