Alex Limozi v Kynate Logistics Solutions Limited — 2023

The tribunal found that, although the written agreement described the claimant as self-employed, the relationship had to be assessed in the round. It accepted that the claimant was provided with a vehicle, uniform and scanner, received instructions about his schedule and work, and was required to carry out the duties personally. The substitution clause was limited and required approval by the respondent and DHL, and was never used. Applying the Employment Rights Act 1996 provisions referred to in the judgment and Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith, the tribunal held that the claimant was a worker and not self-employed.

On the vehicle and other costs issue, the tribunal found that the agreement did not authorise deductions through wages for losses or costs said to arise from the claimant's use of the vehicle. It held that deductions for items including the lens panel and wing mirror, slum lock, door card, fuel reimbursement, parking, uniform, parcel claim, side mirror and rear light lens were unlawful deductions from wages. That claim succeeded in the sum of £892.05.

The tribunal also upheld the holiday pay claim. Having found worker status, and noting the respondent's concession that holiday pay would be due if that finding were made, it awarded £3,080.00 as holiday pay wages. The separate £2,906.00 deduction claim failed because the claimant could not point the tribunal to the relevant parts of the global delivery and collection data showing that the sums claimed were due.

The tribunal refused the claimant's request for £3,660.00 in legal fees. It noted that costs orders are limited, that each party usually bears its own legal costs, and that although there had been some delay in producing data, the respondent had explained that the material had to be obtained from DHL and had acted promptly once it was available. The judgment states that the respondent was ordered to pay £3,972.05 in total.