ZED PHOENIX v Julia Sieckmann T/a Julia Aurelia Tarot and Meditation — 2025

The claimant, Zed Phoenix, and Miss Julia Sieckmann were in a romantic relationship and the claimant did video editing work for the respondent's tarot business. The tribunal found that there was no written contract and that the working arrangement was informal at first, with ad hoc payments from late October 2022 to January 2023. It found that from February 2023 there was an oral profit-share arrangement for Vimeo and Patreon content, and that a separate agreement later applied to the Teachable tarot course, with the claimant's share reduced from 40% to 20% in October 2023. The tribunal found there was no agreement that the claimant would receive any YouTube revenue.

Applying the employment-status authorities it cited, the tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee. It found there was insufficient mutuality of obligation, because the claimant was not obliged to accept work and the respondent was not obliged to provide it, payments were tied to revenue rather than salary or wages, and the overall arrangement was more like a commercial profit share than employment. The tribunal also found the claimant had substantial autonomy in when he worked, could take time off, was not subject to disciplinary or grievance procedures, was free to work for others, and knew that tax and national insurance were not being deducted. Although it found personal service was required, it held that the respondent was in effect a customer of the claimant's film-making business, so he was not a limb (b) worker either.

The tribunal found that the romantic relationship ended in February 2024 and that the business arrangement was intended to end with it, although the reasons refer at different points to 16 February 2024 and 19 February 2024. It found the parties then agreed that the claimant would continue editing for a short period, and that the respondent terminated that remaining arrangement with immediate effect on 27 March 2024. Because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the notice pay and unlawful deduction from wages claims and dismissed both. The earlier complaints for redundancy payment and holiday pay had already been dismissed on withdrawal and were not adjudicated in this judgment.