Mr R Lingel v Chelmsford Hotels Limited — 2023

At the open preliminary hearing on 6 June 2023, Employment Judge S Shore determined the preliminary issue of whether Mr R Lingel was an employee, a worker, or self-employed in relation to Chelmsford Hotels Limited, trading as The County Hotel. The tribunal applied section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered the authorities cited in the judgment, including Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, Uber BV and ors v Aslam and ors, Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority, Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith, and Ter-Berg v Simply Smile manor House Ltd and ors.

The tribunal found that Mr Lingel was not an employee or worker. It relied on findings that there was no written agreement describing him as an employee or worker; he invoiced the respondent for DJ services; he was responsible for his own tax and national insurance; he was not on payroll; he provided his own equipment and did not wear a uniform; he could work elsewhere; and the respondent also used other DJs. The tribunal found there was no mutuality of obligation, no obligation on the respondent to offer work or on Mr Lingel to accept it, and that his evidence about a substitute restriction, disciplinary process, and the nature of the arrangement was not accepted.

The tribunal rejected Mr Lingel's case that his expectation of becoming an employee, his LinkedIn description, training on the respondent's lighting system, and his decision to clear his diary showed employee or worker status. It found those matters did not establish a contract of employment or a worker's contract and described his promissory estoppel argument as having no legal or factual merit. As a result, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claims requiring employee or worker status, and all claims were dismissed.