Case 4104919/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Swales v Represented by: Ms N Munro - Solicitor Novo Technologies Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104919/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Swales
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Swales supplied his services to Novo Technologies Ltd through his own company, Ian Swales Ltd, and that there was no contractual documentation beyond invoices. It accepted that the respondent could offer work which Ian Swales Ltd was free to accept or reject, that the claimant set his own daily rate, that substitution was possible, that he decided when to take time off, and that he was in control of his work on site. On those facts, and having regard to the absence of mutuality of obligation and personal service, the tribunal held that he was not a worker within section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under ss.94-98 ERA 1996; the claimant withdrew the complaint at the start of the hearing and the tribunal dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996; the claimant withdrew the complaint at the start of the hearing and the tribunal dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 based on four alleged detriments. The tribunal held the claimant was not a worker for s.230 or s.43K purposes, found detriment (a) was out of time, accepted detriments (b) and (c) were in time but still dismissed them for lack of worker status, and struck out detriment (d) under Rule 37(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 ERA 1996 in respect of two unpaid invoices. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant was not a worker. The reasons refer to invoice sums of £1,512.50 and a second invoice described as £1,143.30 in the findings and £1,143.44 in the discussion. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant was not a worker and also found the claim was presented late. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43K Employment Rights Act 1996
- mutuality of obligation
- personal service
- substitution
- control
- Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
- Community Based Care Health Ltd v Narayan
- Plastering Contractors Stanmore Ltd v Holden
- Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd v Baird
- Croke v Hydro Aluminium Worcester Ltd
- Keppel Seghers UK Ltd v Hinds
- Rule 37(a) Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.