Case 4101524/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mohsin Ali v Represented by: Ms S Mechan - Solicitor Miles Rhodes Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4101524/2022
- Decision date
- 1 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mohsin Ali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim on 13 March 2022 seeking holiday pay and commission. The respondent resisted the claim, contending that the claimant was self-employed and not entitled to annual leave. The tribunal listed the matter for a preliminary hearing to decide employment status.
The tribunal found that the claimant entered into an agreement with the respondent in June 2020, described as a "Self Employed Consultants" agreement, under which he provided mortgage adviser services as a registered FCA individual. It found that he could not carry on regulated activities for himself or another business while registered with the respondent, could not subcontract without prior written approval, and used the respondent's paperwork, business cards and client fee agreements. Clients paid fees to the respondent, and the claimant received 75% of commission received on new business written.
In its factual findings the tribunal accepted that the respondent set the fee structure, including a cap of £500 for standard mortgage applications and £1,000 for more complex matters, although not every fee required prior approval. It also found that the claimant worked from home, attended training arranged by the respondent, and was not provided with office equipment, but those factors did not lead the tribunal to conclude that he was in business on his own account. The tribunal also found that he was not required to work fixed hours, but was expected to be contactable during office hours.
Applying the statutory definition of worker and referring to Pimlico Plumbers and Uber, the tribunal held that the claimant was obliged to perform services personally, that the limited substitution position and the surrounding arrangements pointed away from self-employment, and that the respondent was not shown to be his client or customer. It therefore concluded that the claimant was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and Regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The judgment did not determine the substantive commission or holiday pay claims or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for outstanding commission brought under s.13 ERA 1996. This judgment was a preliminary hearing on worker status only; the tribunal found the claimant was a worker within s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and Regulation 2(1) WTR 1998, but did not determine whether any deduction was made or any sum was payable. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim for holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. This judgment was a preliminary hearing on worker status only; the tribunal found the claimant was a worker within s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and Regulation 2(1) WTR 1998, but did not determine entitlement or any holiday pay amount. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 2(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd & another v Smith
- Uber BV & others v Aslam & others
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.