Huei-Ping Chen v Iconic Worldwide Limited — 2022

The claimant also had a sex discrimination claim, but that was dismissed before the hearing by order dated 3 July 2020. The remaining issues were whether she was an employee or worker of Iconic Worldwide Limited and, if so, whether she was entitled to holiday pay, overtime pay, paid bereavement leave, and a further sum said to relate to the period between 26 October 2019 and 2 December 2019.

The tribunal found that the claimant was engaged throughout as a contractor. There was no written employment contract; she offered her services on that basis, worked for others, invoiced the respondent for fees, was paid hourly rather than by salary, used her own laptop, was not on PAYE, and was not given the respondent's policies and procedures or employee benefits. It accepted that the parties agreed her hours, but found that this did not amount to a contract of service.

The tribunal also found that later discussions did not change the substance of the relationship. It accepted that Mr Muir made an offer in April 2019 about holiday pay and that Mr Evans knew about it, but held that no binding agreement was created and the claimant's status did not change. It likewise held that the August 2019 discussion about overtime did not alter the contractual position.

Because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, the claims for holiday pay, overtime pay and paid bereavement leave failed. The tribunal did not pursue the separate sum claimed for the period between 26 October 2019 and 2 December 2019 because no legal basis for that claim had been set out.