Case 3300180/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I. Ameer, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300180/2023
- Decision date
- 30 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr I. Ameer, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on a preliminary issue in the joined cases of Kit McGuire and Elizabeth Graham against David Crilly t/a The Cambridge Shakespeare Festival. The tribunal changed the respondent name to David Crilly t/a The Cambridge Shakespeare Festival and decided only whether the claimants were 'limb b' workers under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996. It did not determine the underlying substantive claims at this stage.
The tribunal found that Mr McGuire agreed to perform with the Festival on terms communicated in the 7 April 2022 email: £50 per week, free accommodation, and reimbursement of expenses on receipt. Ms Graham was offered £150 per week on similar terms. The tribunal accepted that both claimants were expected to perform personally, could not send substitutes, and were required to follow the Festival's directions on rehearsals, performance times, leafletting in full costume, and striking duties at the end of performances.
Applying the authorities it cited, including Uber v Aslam, Bates van Winkelhof, Westwood, Somerville and related cases, the tribunal found there was a legally enforceable contract, personal service, sufficient mutuality while the work was being done, and no client or customer relationship. It relied on findings of control and integration, including the respondent's control of rehearsal schedules, expectations about reporting illness, exclusivity during the Festival period, and the claimants' involvement in acting, leafletting, striking and other Festival tasks. The tribunal concluded that both claimants were workers under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and directed that, unless remedy could be agreed, a remedy hearing should be listed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal declared that both claimants were 'limb b' workers within s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996. No substantive liability or remedy claim was decided at this hearing; a remedy hearing was to be listed unless the parties agreed remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996
- Uber v Aslam three elements
- Bates van Winkelhof no substitute for applying the statute to the facts
- Market Investigations business on own account
- Hospital Medical Group v Westwood client or customer test
- Somerville mutuality of obligation
- Autoclenz true agreement
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.