Case 3312215/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Kellermann v Pets Abroad UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312215/2023
- Decision date
- 11 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Kellermann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant began work for Pets Abroad UK Ltd on 21 January 2020 as a pet travel driver. The tribunal found that there was no written contract until 1 February 2022, when the claimant signed a contract of employment. Before that date, he was paid on invoice, was responsible for his own tax and national insurance, and did not receive holiday pay or sick pay.
Applying the authorities on employee status, including Ready Mixed Concrete, mutuality of obligation, control, and the Autoclenz/Uber approach to the true agreement, the tribunal found that there was sufficient control when the claimant accepted a job, but that mutuality of obligation was absent before February 2022. The tribunal accepted Mrs Cirone's evidence that the claimant could choose whether to accept work, and that the respondent was not obliged to offer him work. It relied in part on WhatsApp messages showing the respondent asking whether the claimant and his mother were available, and the pair allocating work between themselves.
The tribunal also accepted that the claimant had asked in January 2022 about "coming on to the books" because he could not sustain himself on less than £1,000 a month as a full-time driver, and treated that as consistent with the pre-2022 arrangement being temporary rather than employment. It found that the later written contract changed the terms from February 2022, but could not alter the reality of the earlier relationship. The claim for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the tribunal made no findings about the reasons for the dismissal itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant was found not to have been an employee before 1 February 2022 and therefore lacked the two years' service required for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim; the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s 230 ERA
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- mutuality of obligation
- control
- Autoclenz/Uber principle
- Serco v Wells
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.