Mr Rose v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd HELD AT: London South (by CVP) — 2025

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Hart sitting alone at London South (by CVP) on 8-9 October 2025 to determine whether Mr Rose, a plumber engaged by Pimlico Plumbers Ltd through his limited company JDM Renovations Ltd, was a worker under s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and equivalent provisions in s.54(3) NMWA 1998 and reg.2(1) WTR 1998. Pimlico had already conceded that he was a worker under the extended s.43K definition for whistleblowing purposes, and the claimant withdrew his contention that he was an employee under s.230(3)(a).

The tribunal found that the claimant worked under a contract requiring personal performance. While the written agreement contained a substitution clause, in practice the right to substitute was heavily fettered: substitutes required Pimlico's approval or had themselves to be Pimlico engineers, and the arrangement did not amount to an unfettered right of substitution inconsistent with personal service.

The tribunal further concluded that Pimlico was not a client or customer of any profession or business carried on by the claimant. He was fully integrated into Pimlico's operation, used Pimlico's branded van, uniform and ID, was restricted from marketing to or providing services to Pimlico's customers during and for six months after the contract, and had no control over fees, deductions or contract terms. Applying the approach in Uber, Smith and Westwood, the judge concluded that Mr Rose was a limb (b) worker. The substantive claims remain to be determined at a later hearing.