Miss Caitlin Brine v Ontos Limited and 2 others — 2023

The claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, failure to pay the National Minimum Wage, breach of contract, unauthorised deductions from wages, failure to provide a written itemised pay statement, failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, and failure to take or be paid for statutory annual leave. Before the substantive issue, the tribunal refused the respondents’ postponement application and refused the claimant’s strike out application, then heard evidence from Miss Brine and Mrs Edmonds sitting alone before Employment Judge Saward.

On the facts, the tribunal found that Miss Brine and Mrs Edmonds met in January 2020 and later arranged work in June 2020 through email and conversation. There was no written agreement. The tribunal found an oral contract between Miss Brine and Mrs Edmonds, not Ontos Limited, and found that the arrangement involved flexible hours, invoices for payment, work on a number of different projects, and freedom for the claimant to work elsewhere.

Applying the section 230 ERA 1996 status framework, the tribunal accepted that there was personal service and some mutuality of obligation, but concluded that the overall arrangement lacked sufficient control to amount to a contract of employment. It noted that the claimant chose when and how to work, worked from home, had no fixed days, was paid on invoice, and described herself as freelance. Looking at all the circumstances in total, the tribunal held that Miss Brine was self-employed, was not an employee, and was not a worker for the purposes of the legislation.

Because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, all substantive claims were dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.