Miss R Brennan v PLZ Soccer Limited — 2026

Following a preliminary hearing on 18 June 2026, the tribunal held that Miss R Brennan was a worker of PLZ Soccer Limited under section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 2(1) Working Time Regulations 1998 during the football seasons. There was no contract between the parties during the six or seven week summer off seasons. The hearing concerned her status for claims seeking holiday pay and arrears of wages based on alleged payment below the National Minimum Wage.

Brennan performed digital media production work between 2 February 2024 and 13 November 2025, with summer breaks. She initially worked two days a week and generally worked four days a week from 14 August 2024. The daily rate was £50 initially and £60 from August 2024. Both parties described the arrangement as freelance. Brennan submitted monthly invoices using a template supplied by the respondent, was treated as self-employed for tax and National Insurance, and received no sick pay, holiday pay or pension contributions.

The tribunal found sufficient mutuality of obligation during each football season. The July 2024 messages showed an agreement guaranteeing four days of work a week in return for Brennan providing her services. Her payment records supported a regular working arrangement. The tribunal inferred sufficient mutuality for the earlier February to June 2024 engagement as well. Her ability to take days off or decline some work was consistent with the less stringent test for limb (b) workers. During the off seasons, neither party had continuing obligations, so there was no overarching contract; each football season involved a separate contract.

Brennan had undertaken to perform the services personally. There was no express substitution right, and substitution had never been discussed or agreed during the engagement. Mr McGuire's evidence that he would have accepted a suitably qualified substitute was given with hindsight and did not establish a contractual right. The tribunal did not accept Brennan's argument that access to company accounts and equipment made substitution operationally impossible. Its finding rested on the absence of any agreed substitution term.

The balance of the evidence showed that Brennan provided services within the respondent's business rather than running a business of which the respondent was a customer. The respondent fixed her rate and directed her daily production tasks. She used her own laptop alongside its camera, sound equipment and company accounts. She performed production work exclusively for the respondent, did not market those services elsewhere and took no entrepreneurial risk. Her separate weekend employment as a council lifeguard used different skills. Her regular commitment, partial economic dependence and inclusion in team communications and a public Christmas photograph supported worker status.

The tribunal also weighed evidence pointing towards independent self-employment, including Brennan's control over much of her working day, occasional unavailability, invoicing arrangements and the absence of disciplinary sanctions. Applying the statutory definitions in light of Autoclenz and Uber, it assessed the practical relationship and the purpose of the legislation. The freelance label used by both parties did not determine her status. This judgment resolved the preliminary status issue only; it did not decide the substantive pay claims or make a monetary award.