Mr S Afful v R1 (First Respondent) R2 (Second Respondent) London Borough of Haringey (Third Respondent) — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing to decide which respondent, if any, was the claimant's employer for claims of unfair dismissal, arrears of pay and notice pay. The tribunal held that the claimant was not employed by R1 or R3, so all claims against those respondents were dismissed. The claims continued against R2.

The tribunal found that the direct payment arrangement meant R3 was providing funding and safeguarding oversight, not employing the claimant. R2, not R3, found the claimant, agreed the work, negotiated the hourly rate, controlled the bank account used for wages, later changed the hours, and dealt with the 2019 ending of the arrangement. Payroll documents naming R1 as employer were treated as reflecting information supplied to the payroll provider, not as conclusive evidence of the true contract.

Applying section 230 ERA 1996 and the authorities cited, including James v Greenwich LBC, Snook, Autoclenz, Ready Mixed Concrete and Byrne Brothers, the tribunal concluded there was no contract with R3 and no contract with R1. It found a contract between the claimant and R2, that the claimant was required to perform personally, and that the arrangement had sufficient control and no inconsistent features to be a contract of employment. The case was to proceed to an in-person final hearing against R2.