Case 3300693/2022 · Employment Tribunal
represented herself For the v Mr R Jones (director) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300693/2022
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs F Betts, Mr N Boustred
Parties
2 namedClaimant
represented herself For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Thornton worked for Multi Trades Training Limited from 4 May 2021, initially as a temporary Training Administrator supplied through Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited. She was pregnant when she started, and the respondent was aware of that from an early stage. In late August 2021 the parties moved to a separate arrangement under which she would provide administration services through her partner's business, supply staff to cover her maternity absence, and invoice the respondent at £21 an hour. The tribunal found that Mrs Evans and Mrs Kriel were recruited under that arrangement, and that the respondent paid the first two invoices but did not pay the later £750-per-recruit charges included on the 1 November 2021 invoice.
The tribunal held that the September to October 2021 arrangement was a genuine business-to-business arrangement, not a contract of employment and not a contract for personal service. It found that Miss Thornton worked largely autonomously from home, was not subject to the degree of control expected in employment, used her own equipment, and was expected to supply and manage other staff rather than provide the services personally. It therefore concluded that she was not an employee or worker of the respondent in respect of the self-employed arrangement, and was not an employee in the extended sense under the Equality Act 2010. It also held that she was not a contract worker for the period after 1 September 2021 because, for that arrangement, she was operating as her own business undertaking rather than being employed by another person.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract and alternative unauthorised deduction from wages claims for lack of jurisdiction. It also dismissed the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint under both section 39 and section 41 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that Miss Thornton had been a contract worker while assigned to the respondent by Reed up to 15 October 2021, but the 31 October 2021 termination ended the separate self-employed arrangement, not the agency assignment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal because of pregnancy and maternity. Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee when the respondent ended the arrangement on 31 October 2021, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice-pay claim dismissed because the claimant was not an employee and the Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 did not apply. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid recruitment/referral fees dismissed. The tribunal found no agreement that the respondent would pay a recruitment fee or the later £750-per-recruit charge. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Alternative claim for recruitment fees dismissed because the claimant was not an employee or worker, and the tribunal found no contractual entitlement to the fee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed because the claimant was not an employee in the extended sense, was not a contract worker on 31 October 2021, and was not found to be an applicant for employment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- James v Greenwich London Borough Council
- James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
- Jivraj v Hashwani
- Uber BV and ors v Aslam and ors
- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- s.99 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.41 Equality Act 2010
- Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.