Case 4111320/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Tinnion Ms. Niamh Graham v 15 Mrs. Lizanne Cuthbertson — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111320/2021
- Decision date
- 8 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tinnion Ms. Niamh Graham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined, as a preliminary issue, that Ms Niamh Graham was an employee of Mrs Lizanne Cuthbertson and not a self-employed contractor. It found that the employment relationship ran from 26 February 2018, when the formal apprenticeship began, until 20 April 2021, when the employment terminated. On that basis, the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, annual leave pay arrears and unlawful deduction from wages, but it did not decide the merits of those claims or make any award at this stage.
In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal accepted that Mrs Cuthbertson exercised significant control over Ms Graham's work, that there was clear mutuality of obligation, and that Ms Graham was required to perform the work personally with no substitution right. It found that she worked fixed days and hours, was paid weekly, worked at the Yard, used mainly Mrs Cuthbertson's equipment, was paid sick leave, and bore no personal financial risk or share of profit in the non-profit stabling enterprise.
The tribunal gave little weight to the April 2019 written contract describing Ms Graham as self-employed. It noted that the contract was internally inconsistent because it also described her as an employee and contained terms more consistent with employment, including fixed hours, gross misconduct dismissal and obligations about sickness, fitness and insurance. The tribunal also treated the Facebook description of Ms Graham as Yard Manager and her apprenticeship status as supportive of employee status, and it ordered a further private preliminary hearing to move the case towards a final merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held Ms Graham was an employee of Mrs Cuthbertson from 26 February 2018 to 20 April 2021 and therefore had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint; no merits decision was made. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held Ms Graham was an employee of Mrs Cuthbertson from 26 February 2018 to 20 April 2021 and therefore had jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract / wrongful dismissal / notice pay complaint; no merits decision was made. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held Ms Graham was an employee of Mrs Cuthbertson from 26 February 2018 to 20 April 2021 and therefore had jurisdiction to hear the annual leave pay arrears complaint pleaded under reg. 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and/or s.13 ERA 1996; no merits decision was made. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held Ms Graham was an employee of Mrs Cuthbertson from 26 February 2018 to 20 April 2021 and therefore had jurisdiction to hear the unlawful deduction from wages complaint; no merits decision was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.230(2) ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- control; mutuality of obligation; and personal service
- Uber v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5
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.