Uzor v Safiu & Ors

A tribunal may find that two individuals jointly employed a domestic worker where the evidence shows that each gave instructions, directed work for their own benefit, and participated in payment. Joint employers are jointly and severally liable for statutory wrongs committed in the employment relationship; no apportionment is required.

For non-discrimination employment claims, whether earlier presentation was reasonably practicable depends on the claimant’s particular circumstances. Once presentation becomes practicable, whether the claim was brought within a reasonable time is an objective discretionary assessment. A tribunal may allow time for a vulnerable claimant and advisers to obtain instructions and relevant information.

The Claimant, a vulnerable migrant domestic worker with limited English, succeeded before the Employment Tribunal in most of her claims against Mr and Mrs Uzor and their company. The Tribunal found that the spouses jointly employed her, held them jointly and severally liable, and extended time for certain non-discrimination complaints.

Both spouses appealed. Mr Uzor challenged the finding that he was an employer, joint and several liability, and the extension of time. Mrs Uzor challenged findings of discrimination as perverse and also contested the time extension. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether the findings disclosed an error of law.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that Mr Uzor and Mrs Uzor jointly employed the Claimant. Mr Uzor gave instructions, required work for his own benefit, and sometimes paid her. The issue was factual and did not require a sophisticated analysis of the tests for a contract of employment.

2. Because the spouses were joint employers, they were jointly and severally liable for statutory wrongs committed in the course of that employment. This was not a case of pure vicarious liability. There was therefore no basis for apportioning liability between them.

3. The perversity challenge disclosed no error of law. The material relied upon did not establish the overwhelming case required to overturn the Tribunal’s credibility-based findings: Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634 CA.

4. The discrimination complaints were continuing acts ending when the engagement ended on 16 July 2009, so the claim presented on 15 October 2009 was in time. For the separate non-discrimination complaints, the Tribunal was entitled to find that earlier presentation had not been reasonably practicable. It could take account of the Claimant’s vulnerability, lack of knowledge and support, limited ability to leave the household, and long working hours.

5. Once the Claimant sought legal advice in August 2009, the Tribunal was also entitled to regard presentation by 15 October 2009 as within a reasonable time. That assessment was discretionary and objectively informed. The intervening period allowed advisers to take instructions and obtain relevant information, as shown by the grievance and questionnaire prepared shortly before the claim.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Both appeals against the Employment Tribunal decision were dismissed: [2012] UKEAT 1424_11_0712.
• Employment Tribunal: Judgment and reasons were sent on 9 August 2011. The Tribunal found joint employment, upheld 15 of 16 claims, awarded compensation, and extended time for specified complaints.