Galdikas & Ors v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd & Ors

Workers are entitled to contractual and statutory minimum agricultural wages, including applicable overtime, night-work and travel-time payments. Travel to the first farm may constitute paid working time where the worker’s normal work requires assignment work and the journey is undertaken for the purposes of the duties. A defence based on payment of the National Minimum Wage does not answer a claim under higher Agricultural Wages Orders. Liability for licensing breaches cannot be avoided by attributing conduct to an intermediary who acted within the labour-supply business. Where claims against a regulator are complex and distinct from claims against the labour supplier, proportionality may require the supplier’s liability to be tried first. Case-management concerns and the absence of supporting medical evidence do not, without more, justify striking out arguable personal injury claims.

Six Lithuanian workers brought claims arising from alleged trafficking and severe labour exploitation against a labour-supply company, its company secretary and director, and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The claims included unpaid wages under Agricultural Wages Orders, breaches of the licensing regime, negligence, harassment, assault and personal injury.

The court determined four applications: the workers’ application for judgment on parts of the defences; the defendants’ strike-out application; an application to set aside a stay in related proceedings; and the Authority’s application for the labour-supply defendants’ liability to be tried as a preliminary stage.

1. Judgment on wage and licensing claims. The Houghton Defendants had no real prospect of defending the claims that the workers were not paid in accordance with the applicable Agricultural Wages Orders. The pleaded reliance on the National Minimum Wage did not answer claims based on the higher Agricultural Wages Order rates. The available payment records did not show the hours worked or the times of work needed to calculate overtime and night-work payments.
2. Under article 18 of the relevant Order, travel to the first farm was compensable. The exclusions in article 18(3) were cumulative: although travel might be incidental to the duties, the condition concerning assignment work was not satisfied. Article 18(4) did not apply because the workers travelled for the purposes of performing their work.
3. The claims based on Conditions 7 and 13 of the Gangmasters (Licensing Conditions) Rules 2009, and Standards 4.3 and 6.3, were also suitable for judgment. The defendants could not avoid responsibility by attributing deductions or withholding of wages to an intermediary who acted as a recruitment agent within their business. The pleaded and evidential case established no real prospect of defending the allegations concerning work-finding fees, wage deductions and inadequate welfare facilities.
4. The accommodation claims could not be determined summarily because factual issues remained concerning control of the properties and their condition. The defective statement of truth justified amendment, not striking out.
5. The defendants’ strike-out application failed. There was no settlement agreement barring the claims. Nor was pursuing the claims an abuse of process: several claims fell outside Employment Tribunal jurisdiction, and there was no obligation to litigate the other claims there. The personal injury claims required robust and proportionate case management, but could not be struck out merely because limitation issues, medical evidence or pleading detail remained to be addressed.
6. The stay in the related Antuzis proceedings was maintained. Having regard to proportionality and cost, the liability issues against the Houghton Defendants were to be tried before the claims against the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which raised complex and distinct issues.

The judgment records that Master Fontaine ordered a stay of the related Antuzis and others proceedings on 9 February 2016 pursuant to CPR 23.10. The Houghton Defendants’ application to set aside that order was refused.