Mrs A Dawodu v Hadouken Tricking Academy Ltd — 2024

Mrs A Dawodu brought complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and public interest disclosure against Hadouken Tricking Academy Ltd. The tribunal first determined employment status only. It found that the respondent was a small business run by the claimant’s son, Kris Breadie, and that the claimant had helped set the business up, had been registered at Companies House as company secretary, and had carried out ad hoc reception, administrative and accounts work.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done work for the respondent, but found there was no written agreement, no agreed hours, no obligation on her to attend or carry out particular tasks, and no agreement that she would be paid wages. It found that the claimant’s position throughout was that she did not want to take wages, including in text messages where she agreed to work for free because the business could not afford to pay her. The tribunal also accepted evidence that she exercised significant control over how she carried out the work, could go to France for months without seeking authority, and was absent for periods of ill health without sick pay or certification.

Applying section 230 ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Nethermere, Hellyer Brothers and Melhuish, the tribunal held that the evidence did not show the irreducible minimum of mutual obligations needed for either an employment contract or a worker contract. It found there was no obligation on the respondent to provide work and no obligation on the claimant to do it, and that the arrangement did not amount to a contract under which she undertook to perform work personally for remuneration. Even taking the claimant’s evidence at its highest, the tribunal concluded that the legal definition of employee or worker was not met.

On that basis, the tribunal found that Mrs Dawodu was not an employee or worker within section 230 ERA 1996. It held that it therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, or alleged protected disclosure complaints, and all complaints were dismissed. No monetary award was made.