Mrs Kirsty Errington v Represented by:10 Mr F Marshall - CAB Amanda Gray and 1 other — 2024

At an open preliminary hearing on 20 February 2024, the tribunal first dealt with the respondents' application to strike out. It treated the application as relying on Rule 37(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, but refused it. The tribunal held that the discrimination complaints identified from the ET1 and the December 2023 case management hearing had been given fair notice, that there had been no breach of a tribunal order, and that it could not say on the materials before it that a fair hearing was no longer possible.

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and considered documents. It found that the claimant applied for the housekeeper role at Spedlins Castle on 24 November 2021, started work on 15 December 2021 and was dismissed on 11 September 2023. She was paid £12 per hour, later £15 per hour, did housekeeping and met guests, had no written contract, and worked irregular hours according to business needs. Applying section 230 ERA 1996, the tribunal found that she provided personal service for remuneration and was subject to sufficient control and mutuality of obligations to be an employee.

On employer identity, the tribunal held that Amanda Gray, not Daisy Steel alone and not the two respondents jointly, was the claimant's employer. It relied on Mrs Gray's ownership of Spedlins Castle, her direction of the claimant's work, the claimant being told to report hours to her, Mrs Gray paying the claimant throughout, giving her a written note of earnings, and dismissing her. The second respondent was dismissed from the proceedings.

As a result of the employment-status finding, the tribunal stated that the section 100 ERA claim would proceed and ordered the claimant to provide a specification of the basis of that claim within 14 days of the judgment.