Ms L Mayers v Kaizen Martial Arts (a partnership) — 2022

This was a public preliminary hearing about employment status and amendment, not a final merits hearing. The tribunal had to decide whether Ms L Mayers was an employee, worker or self-employed, whether her employment with Kaizen Martial Arts (a partnership) continued beyond 31 August 2020, and whether Kaizen Schools LLP should be added as an additional respondent.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Mayers had been paid for administration work from 2010, initially through payroll and later under paperwork describing her as self-employed. It found that the January 2015 P45 and the self-employment document did not reflect the real arrangement: Ms Edwards had suggested and insisted on the change, but the work continued in substance as before. The tribunal accepted that Ms Mayers worked on the respondent's premises, used its computer, submitted timesheets/invoices, followed job descriptions and work plans prepared or approved by Ms Edwards, and needed approval for holiday.

Applying section 230 ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Nethermere, Carmichael, Snook, Autoclenz, Uber and Byrne Brothers, the tribunal held that Ms Mayers remained under a contract of employment with the partnership from 2010 and that it had not ended by 31 August 2020. It therefore granted the application to add Kaizen Schools LLP as a respondent and declined to add Alex Hart Kaizen Ltd. No final decision on liability or remedy for the substantive claims was made at this hearing.