Ranu v Diamond Solicitors LLP

Employment status depends on the relationship established by the facts as a whole. A person initially engaged on a self-employed basis may become an employee, but must establish how and when the relationship changed, whether by agreement, conversation, documentation or conduct.

The tribunal must make factual findings, weigh the factors for and against employment, and reach an evaluative judgment. An appeal does not lie merely because a party says that excessive weight was given to one factor. Reasons are sufficient where they identify the material findings and explain the balancing exercise.

The claimant solicitor worked for the respondent firm on wills and probate matters. She was initially engaged as a locum and was paid at different hourly rates for home and office work. The Employment Tribunal found that she was a worker, but neither an employee nor an independent contractor.

Although she was later placed on the payroll, the tribunal found that this was a practical response to her irregular records and did not alter her status. It also preferred the respondent's evidence that the claimant had declined an offered contract of employment.

The claimant appealed against the rejection of her claim to employee status under Employment Rights Act 1996, contending that the reasons were inadequate and that the decision was perverse.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge was entitled to find that the claimant was a worker but not an employee. The finding was neither perverse nor inadequately reasoned.

2. A relationship initially formed on a self-employed basis can change over time. The person asserting a change to employee status must, however, show how it occurred. It may be established by a clear conversation, documentation or conduct. The tribunal had rejected the claimant's account that she accepted an offer of employment, and its credibility finding could not be reopened on appeal: [16]-[17].

3. The Employment Judge permissibly assessed personal service, mutuality of obligation, control and the claimant's practical flexibility. Some mutuality and control did not compel a finding of employment. Weighing the factors as a whole, the tribunal could conclude that the claimant remained a self-employed professional notwithstanding her inclusion on the payroll: [15], [18]-[19].

4. The reasons satisfied the Meek requirement. They referred to the factual findings, identified the balancing exercise, and gave a cogent explanation for rejecting a change in status. A complaint that the tribunal gave excessive weight to flexibility challenged an evaluative finding of fact, rather than identifying an error of law: [17]-[19].

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed. The tribunal upheld Employment Judge Allen's conclusion that the claimant was a worker but not an employee.
• Employment Tribunal, East London: following a two-day hearing, Reasons were sent on 29 June 2011. The tribunal rejected the claims requiring employee status.