Case 3303908/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Cameron Wallis (Free v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303908/2023
- Decision date
- 9 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Lewis KC
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Cameron Wallis (Free
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms Agnes Timbreza was not employed by either respondent under a contract of service. It found that Ms Lathangi Kathirkamathamby ran Blue Crystal Care Agency as a sole trader, that there was no sufficient communication that she was contracting only as agent for Rose Quartz (London) Ltd, and that payment through R2 and the later invoices did not make R2 the employer. The written Agreement for Services was not shown to have been received or accepted, and the tribunal found several respects in which it did not reflect the reality of the working relationship.
Applying Ready Mixed Concrete, Uber v Aslam, Ter-Berg, Stuart Delivery, RyanAir, Atholl House and the other authorities cited, the tribunal found that the claimant was given significant instructions and monitoring while providing live-in care for Client X, including on food, uniform, logbook entries and replacement carers. However, it considered that the claimant retained substantial flexibility over when she worked, could request time off, and could arrange cover from a limited pool subject to the first respondent's approval. Standing back, that flexibility meant the relationship was not one of employment within s.230(1) ERA, so the automatic unfair dismissal due pregnancy claim, the wrongful dismissal / notice pay claim, and the statutory maternity pay claim were dismissed against the first respondent.
The tribunal nevertheless held that the claimant was a worker of the first respondent under s.230(3)(b) ERA and reg 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and an employee of the first respondent for Equality Act purposes under s.83 EqA. It found that she undertook to perform the care work personally and that the first respondent was not her client or customer. All claims against the second respondent were dismissed because it was not the employer. The decision was a preliminary status judgment only and did not determine the merits of the remaining worker-status and Equality Act claims, which were to continue.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal due pregnancy under s.99 ERA; dismissed because the claimant was not employed under a contract of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice-pay / breach-of-contract claim dismissed because the claimant was not employed under a contract of service; the conclusion also referred to breach of contract (notice pay). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Non-payment of statutory maternity pay claim dismissed because employee status under s.171 SSCBA 1992 was not established. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Uber BV v Aslam worker-status approach
- Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Atholl House Productions
- Ter-Berg v Simply Smile Manor House Ltd
- Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine
- RyanAir DAC and another v Lutz
- Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville
- Hospital Medical Group v Westwood
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.