In person For the v Respondent — 2017

Mr D Roaf worked for Mrs J Howman t/a Ashmere Fisheries from 14 October 2013 to 1 September 2017. This open preliminary hearing was concerned with status only: whether he was an employee, a worker, or an independent contractor. The tribunal noted the initial note recording the arrangement, including payment terms and hours, and the later consultancy agreement dated 30 January 2014, which stated that the relationship was that of an independent contractor.

The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee. It accepted that the parties intended a self-employed arrangement, that he invoiced at £10 per hour, that he was paid on invoice rather than by wages, that he had other clients and business activity, and that he could organise much of the work himself. It accepted that there was mutuality of obligation, but found that the respondent did not exercise sufficient control over how the work was done to create a contract of service.

The tribunal also held that the claimant was not a worker because personal service was not required. It relied on the substitution clause in the consultancy agreement and the evidence that Hayley Roaf regularly carried out some of the work, with those hours included in the claimant's invoices. The tribunal did not accept that the practical arrangement made the substitution clause a sham, and concluded that the claimant was in business on his own account and dealing with the respondent as a client. As a result, the claims for unfair dismissal, public interest disclosure detriment and dismissal, breach of contract and unpaid holiday pay were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.