Mr N Chukwu v Newsteam Group Ltd. — 2025

The claimant worked a single delivery shift for the respondent, a newspaper and magazine delivery company, on 27 March 2025 after responding to an Indeed advert and signing an Independent Contractor Agreement. During the shift his vehicle hit a pothole and punctured a tyre; he was unable to work the following day and was not engaged again. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract (the cost of a replacement tyre) and unauthorised deduction from wages (his unpaid shift). The respondent denied that he was an employee or worker.

The Tribunal found that the written Independent Contractor Agreement set out all the terms of the relationship and was supported by an agreed transcript of the pre-engagement telephone conversation in which the role was expressly described as self-employed. The Agreement contained a substitution clause which the Tribunal found to be genuine and unfettered, and the claimant himself accepted in oral evidence that he could have arranged for another person to cover his work at any time. Applying the multi-factor approach referenced in cases such as Autoclenz, the Tribunal concluded that the right of substitution was inconsistent with an obligation of personal performance and that the factual matrix leaned heavily towards self-employed contractor status.

Because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker under s.230 ERA 1996, all three claims failed for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal additionally noted that, even if employee status had been established, the unfair dismissal claim would have failed under s.108 ERA 1996 as the claimant did not have two years' continuous service. No remedy hearing was required.