Case 4102463/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs l Ilett v Mrs A McKevitt — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102463/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Wick
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs l Ilett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs Ilett contracted with Mrs Anne McKevitt, but that she was not an employee. It accepted that the care arrangement was set up as a self-employed arrangement, that Mrs Ilett worked to that arrangement, submitted invoices, dealt with her own tax and national insurance, and had claimed state maternity allowance rather than maternity pay when she stopped work while pregnant. On that basis, the notice-pay claim was dismissed and the statutory redundancy-payment claim was dismissed.
The tribunal held that Mrs Ilett was nevertheless a worker. It found that she provided care personally, could not send a substitute of her own choosing, did not provide tools or equipment, and did not operate a profession or business undertaking of her own. The tribunal also noted that the respondent increased sleepover pay to meet minimum wage levels from 17 March 2018, which it treated as consistent with an acceptance that the sleepover work attracted worker rights, although that was not decisive.
On annual leave, the tribunal accepted written evidence of holiday requests and approvals for 22-26 October 2018 and 9-11 and 16-18 November 2018, and found that the claimant had also taken 22 June-7 July 2018 and 16-18 August 2018 as holidays. Because the evidence as to the surrounding periods was limited, it calculated the award on the basis of four weeks' leave. Using the agreed average weekly pay of £318.51, it awarded £1,274.04 under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
On the sleepover claim, the tribunal found that Mrs Ilett was at the house throughout the overnight shift, was required to respond when needed, and remained alert to the audio monitor, so the sleepovers were working time for National Minimum Wage purposes rather than mere availability within regulation 32(2). Applying Wright v Scottbridge Construction Ltd, it concluded that 18 sleepovers between 1 January and 17 March 2018 were underpaid by £44 each, producing an award of £792. The total monetary award was £2,066.04.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and therefore had no entitlement to statutory notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant was not an employee; the tribunal said the redundancy-payment issue was not applicable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Annual leave pay upheld under the Working Time Regulations 1998 for holidays taken on 22 June-7 July 2018, 16-18 August 2018, 22-26 October 2018, and 9-11 and 16-18 November 2018. The tribunal calculated four weeks' leave at an average weekly pay of £318.51. | Upheld | — | £1,274 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was underpaid for sleepovers between 1 January and 17 March 2018. It noted that the claim would otherwise have been out of time as an unlawful deduction from wages claim, but treated it as a breach of contract claim within its extension jurisdiction and awarded the shortfall. | Upheld | — | £792 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,066
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Ready Mixed Concrete test
- Bear Scotland v Fulton three-month rule
- Wright v Scottbridge Construction Ltd
- Regulation 32(2) WTR 1998
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.