Mr M Bennett v MA Prestige Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Bloch KC at Watford on 4 December 2024 to determine the claimant's employment status while working for MA Prestige Ltd as a vehicle recovery driver between 1 May 2023 and 29 August 2023. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The claimant gave evidence, which the judge accepted, describing a verbal contract under which he was paid £300 per week, worked full time using a flatbed recovery truck provided by the respondent, was directed by the respondent's director Mr Christodoulou as to the nature, timing and location of jobs, had no right to send a substitute, and had no other work or business of his own.

Applying section 230(3) ERA 1996 and Regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and reviewing authorities including Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions, Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd, Market Investigations, Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung, James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd, Byrne and Autoclenz v Belcher, the judge concluded that the claimant was an employee and also a limb (b) worker of the respondent and was not an independent contractor. The judge found mutuality of obligation, personal service with no substitution right, considerable control by the respondent over the work, and that the respondent provided the essential tools (the flatbed truck and fuel).

The judge addressed the respondent's reliance on invoices issued by the claimant from July 2023 onwards, finding that the invoices (which referred to "weeks pay") did not reflect the true terms of the agreement, analogously with Autoclenz v Belcher, and that non-payment of tax and National Insurance did not assist the respondent. The judgment determined status only; no remedies were ordered at this preliminary hearing.