Mr Joseph Johnson v Mma Ldn Limited and 2 others — 2024

The tribunal first rejected the claimant’s argument that he was an employee of MMA LDN. It held that the May 2023 “Collaboration Contract” was not a contract of employment, that the original January 2023 “Partnership Agreement” was also not an employment contract, and that the degree of control required for employee status was not present. The tribunal found that the claimant worked personally under a contract and that the relationship was not one of client or customer, so he was a worker within section 230 ERA 1996.

On time limits, the tribunal found that the unpaid invoices formed a series of deductions. The last invoice covered work up to 4 November 2023, and earlier unpaid invoices from 21 May 2023 onwards were also in time. The claim was therefore treated as covering deductions from 21 May 2023 to 4 November 2023.

On the substance of the wage claim, the tribunal found that monthly invoices from 21 May 2023 to 21 October 2023, together with the final invoice to 4 November 2023, totalled £5,500. It rejected the respondents’ case that the sums were not payable because the claimant had not worked the agreed hours. The tribunal held that the deductions were unauthorised because there was no statutory authority or written contractual term permitting them.

The tribunal also dealt with the claimant’s suggested offsets. It accepted that he had waived £4,000 in relation to earlier invoices, but found that he only in fact owed £2,000 under the partnership arrangement. It rejected any offset for refreshments because there was no evidence of an agreed or authorised reimbursement obligation. The First Respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £5,500 gross.