Ms S Yenamala v Credit Suisse International and 1 other — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Brewer on 30 June 2023. The claimant, Ms S Yenamala, abandoned her contention that she was employed by either respondent, so the tribunal considered only whether she was a worker for Credit Suisse International (CSI) or Atyeti Limited (A) for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal set out the worker tests under s.230 ERA, s.43K ERA, s.83 EqA and s.41 EqA, and referred to authorities including Pimlico Plumbers, Redrow Homes, Byrne Brothers, Uber v Aslam and McTigue.

As regards CSI, the tribunal found there was no contract between the claimant and CSI. The contractual documents were between A and K&K Krishnan Corporation Limited, and CSI was not a party to those arrangements. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that a contract could be inferred merely because she performed work for CSI or because CSI personnel gave her instructions in the course of the project. It held that CSI did not determine the terms on which she was engaged and that she was not a limb (b) worker, not a contract worker under s.41 EqA, and not within s.43K ERA as against CSI.

As regards A, the tribunal found that the Consultancy Agreement was between A and K&K, not between A and the claimant personally. K&K was described as a consultancy, the claimant signed the contract as a director of K&K, the agreement allowed substitute consultants, and K&K invoiced A for the work at a daily rate of £625, later £750, with a total contract price of £180,000. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's work was carried out through K&K, which had other clients, and that fees were paid to K&K rather than to the claimant directly. It held that A was the client of K&K's business undertaking, that the claimant was not a worker for A under s.230 ERA or s.83 EqA, and that A was not a principal within s.41 EqA or an employer for s.43K purposes.

Because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of either respondent, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed them.