E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001727/2024 (V)5 Held on April 2025 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr W Zima v Dionard Guest House Limited — 2025

The claimant moved into the respondent's guest house on 1 January 2024 under a tenancy agreement and paid rent of £160 per week. The tribunal found that the relationship later became friendly and that, after the claimant said he was having financial difficulties, Ms Campbell stopped charging rent. The claimant helped out at the guest house on a voluntary basis and, from the start of the tourist season in early April 2024, he assisted in the dining room Monday to Friday from 7am to 10am and sometimes greeted guests. He was not paid wages, was not given a contract of employment, did not do bookings or manage the guest house, and the 'Assistant Manager' title was described as more ceremonial than substantive.

The respondent's application to strike out the claim under Rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 was refused. The tribunal accepted there had been unreasonable conduct, including an email sent on 20 December 2024, but was not satisfied that a fair trial had become impossible.

On employment status, the tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee under s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 and not a worker under s.230(3). It found there was no intention to create legal obligations, no mutuality of obligation, no payment of wages, no paid holidays, and no control exercised by Ms Campbell over the claimant's work. Applying the statutory definitions and the authorities it cited, including Autoclenz, Ready Mixed Concrete, Carmichael, Atholl House and Uber, the tribunal concluded that the arrangements were a loose, informal and mutually beneficial arrangement between friends rather than a contract of employment or a contract personally to do work.

Because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, and was not 'in employment' under s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the disability discrimination, whistleblowing, notice pay, holiday pay or unpaid wages complaints. The claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the tribunal said it was unnecessary to address the claimant's disability status.