Uzor v Safiu & Ors

Whether a person is a joint employer is ordinarily a question of fact. Where the evidence shows that both spouses gave instructions to a domestic worker, required work for their respective benefit and made payments, an Employment Tribunal may find a joint contract of employment without a sophisticated analysis of employment-status tests.

Joint employers are jointly and severally liable for statutory wrongs committed in the employment relationship. A tribunal’s assessment of whether timely presentation was reasonably practicable, and whether a later claim was presented within a reasonable time, is discretionary but includes an objective element.

The Claimant, a vulnerable migrant domestic worker with limited English, brought multiple employment and discrimination claims against Mr and Mrs Uzor and a company. The Employment Tribunal found that the spouses jointly employed her, upheld 15 of 16 claims, awarded substantial compensation and extended time for several non-discrimination complaints.

Mr Uzor appealed the findings of joint employment and joint and several liability. Both spouses challenged the time extension, and Mrs Uzor also advanced a perversity challenge to discrimination findings. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the employment relationship, liability, and the reasonable practicability and reasonable-time requirements for late claims.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find, on the facts, that Mr and Mrs Uzor jointly employed the Claimant. They jointly gave her instructions, required tasks for Mr Uzor’s benefit and he sometimes paid her. This was not a case requiring a sophisticated analysis of employment-status tests or mutuality of obligation.
2. Because the spouses were employers together, rather than parties liable only through pure vicarious liability, they were jointly and severally liable for statutory torts committed in the course of that employment. No apportionment of liability was required.
3. The perversity challenge disclosed no legal error. The material shown did not approach the overwhelming case required to overturn the Tribunal’s credibility-based findings.
4. The Tribunal made no error in finding that timely presentation of the relevant non-discrimination complaints had not been reasonably practicable. It was entitled to take account of the Claimant’s vulnerability, isolation, limited English, lack of knowledge of her rights, long working hours and difficulty in obtaining advice.
5. Once legal advice was sought in August 2009, the period until presentation on 15 October 2009 was not wholly unreasonable. The Tribunal was entitled to regard the time needed to obtain instructions and information, including the grievance and questionnaire, as a reasonable period. Its assessment was discretionary, with an objective element, and raised no question of law.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeals from the Employment Tribunal were dismissed.
• Employment Tribunal: Judgment and reasons sent on 9 August 2011. The Tribunal found joint employment, upheld 15 of 16 claims, and extended time for specified complaints.