Case 4103667/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Scott v Miss Gillian Rose (deceased) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4103667/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Scott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr Scott had standing to pursue his claims. He said the case included unfair dismissal, holiday pay and breach of contract, and he also proposed to add a discrimination claim. The tribunal considered the matter on the footing that discrimination was included for the purposes of deciding status. The working relationship was governed by an Independent Contractor Licence Agreement entered into on 14 October 2009, and the relationship ended at the end of December 2018.
The tribunal accepted that the written agreement described Mr Scott as self-employed, but it looked at the reality of the relationship. Mr Scott said he could choose holidays and breaks, arrange a substitute barber himself, deal with his own tax and national insurance, and that there was no obligation on the respondents to provide work or on him to accept it. He paid a weekly rental charge of £65 for the chair, received two-thirds of the price of each haircut, and the respondents retained one-third. The salon did not operate an appointment system, and customers could choose a preferred barber or wait for the next available one.
The tribunal also noted features pointing the other way, including Mr Rose's day-to-day oversight, his ability to express views about timing, opening and closing, and a text exchange in October 2018 in which Mr Scott asked whether he could leave early and was told that was fine for that day. Even so, the tribunal found that this did not outweigh the broader evidence given by Mr Scott about how the arrangement worked in practice.
The tribunal concluded that Mr Scott was not an employee, was not a worker, and was not engaged under a contract of employment or a contract personally to do work for Equality Act purposes. As a result, he lacked standing to pursue the unfair dismissal, holiday pay, breach of contract and proposed discrimination claims. No award was made in this judgment, and the respondents' expenses application was listed for a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because the claimant was found not to be an employee or worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed on the same status/standing basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on the same status/standing basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | A proposed discrimination amendment was treated as part of the status issue, but the judgment does not identify any protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- s.83(2) Equality Act 2010
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.