Case 3300019/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Steel v Orchard Prep Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300019/2022
- Decision date
- 15 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP in Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Steel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, the tribunal was not deciding the merits of Ms Steel's unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, race discrimination, wrongful dismissal or unpaid wages claims. The issue was whether she worked for Orchard Prep Ltd as a self-employed contractor through Steele Education Ltd, or whether she had employee or worker status under the ERA 1996 and Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the claimant was first supplied through an agency on 7 January 2019 and then, from 14 January 2019, continued without the agency and invoiced through Steele Education Ltd. It accepted that the invoicing structure had economic advantages for both sides, but treated the company invoicing as a conduit rather than the reality of the relationship. It rejected the respondent's case on substitution, holding that personal performance by the claimant was required and that, especially from September 2019, the respondent wanted the claimant herself to perform the role. By May 2021 she had been appointed Head of EYFS and deputy safeguarding lead, which reinforced the tribunal's view that any substitution was hypothetical.
The tribunal drew a line between the early part of 2019 and the start of the 2019-20 academic year. It held that the essential elements of employee status were not yet established during January to July 2019 because of the absences and the temporary character of the deployment, but that from 1 September 2019 there was an implied contract of employment. It also relied on the 8 December 2021 termination letter, which referred to no formal contract but said she would be paid to the end of the month, as consistent with notice pay and with the reality of employee status. From 1 September 2019 it found control, mutuality of obligation, integration and exclusivity, and held that the claimant was an employee until dismissal on 10 December 2021. It also held that she was a worker between 14 January 2019 and 30 August 2019. Because of those findings, the tribunal did not need to decide the extended worker issue under s43K ERA 1996 or the Equality Act contract-worker point under s41.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary status ruling only; the tribunal found employee status from 1 September 2019, but did not determine the unfair dismissal merits. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary status ruling only; employee status was found, so the tribunal did not need to decide the s43K protected-disclosure issue. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary status ruling only; employee status was found, so the tribunal did not need to decide the s41 Equality Act contract-worker issue. | Other | Race | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Preliminary status ruling only; employee status from 1 September 2019 was found, but wrongful dismissal merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary status ruling only; the tribunal found worker status from 14 January 2019 to 30 August 2019 and employee status from 1 September 2019, but did not decide the wage claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- balance of probabilities
- s.230 ERA 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Autoclenz
- Pimlico Plumbers
- s.43K ERA 1996
- s.41 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.