1. This is a claim brought before the Employment Tribunal by the Claimant (“Mr. Scott”), that he has family-friendly rights as a result of him being an employee of the Respondent (“Finance Focus International Ltd”). The Claimant maintains, and asks the Tribunal to find, that the Claimant is an employee and therefore has such rights.


First Ground of Claim: Employment Status


  1. The Employment Rights Act 1996, s.230 (1) (2) states that in order to be classed as an employee, there must be a contract of employment. As in Hewlett Packard Ltd v. O’Murphy [2001] EAT there must be contractual nexus between employee and employer. As the contract had implied and express terms, Mr Scott does satisfy to have a contract of employment.


  1. The modern approach in establishing whether there is a contract of service is set out by MacKenna J in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd. v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 Q.B. 497. All of the tests in that case are satisfied here; in particular:


There is an obligation to provide his own skill and personal service. As in Yewens v Noakes (1881) 6 QBD 530, If the employer can tell the worker what to do and how to do it, he is likely to be an employee.  The Claimant in this case who goes by Notary public London does not have a substation clause in his contract so cannot substitute himself for another with the same skill. As in Macfarlane and another v Glasgow City Council [2001] IRLR 7 EAT and the Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (2010) UKFTT 54 (TC), the right to delegate your work, is still controlled by the Respondent. The contract is one of service. The Claimant in this case cannot substitute someone to do his work for him. Thus, making him an employee