Mr A Hallsworth v NAM Global Ltd: 3310912/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 May 2022 |
| Date | 30 May 2022 |
| Published date | 01 July 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 3310912/2020 |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
Case No: 3310912/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr A Hallsworth
Respondent: NAM Global Ltd
Heard at: Watford by Cloud Video Platform On: 11 May 2021
Before: Employment Judge Street
Appearances
For the Claimant: Ms Greenley, counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Fitzgerald, company director
Written reasons having been requested in accordance with Rule 62(3) of the
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, in respect of the status of Mr
Hallsworth, the following Judgment is issued with written Reasons.
JUDGMENT
Mr Hallsworth is an employee of NAM Global Ltd within the meaning of section 230
of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 83 of the Equality Act 2010
REASONS
1. Evidence
1.1. The Tribunal heard from the claimant and from Mr Fitzgerald, and read the
documents referred to in the agreed bundle. The Tribunal read the witness
statements of Mr Mansourian, Mr Barter and Mr Logan who did not attend.
Case No: 3310912/2020
2
2. Issues
2.1. The issue to be determined at this Preliminary Hearing was whether the
claimant was an employee, a worker or self-employed, specifically,
1.1 Was there a contract between Mr Hallsworth and the company? If so,
what were its terms?
1.2 Was the Claimant an employee of the Respondent within the meaning
of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
1.3 Was the Claimant an employee of the Respondent within the meaning
of section 83 of the Equality Act 2010?
1.4 Was the Claimant a worker of the Respondent within the meaning of
section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
3. Findings of Fact
3.1. Mr Hallsworth is a van driver.
3.2. He was employed previously by Panic Link, who had him on the payroll and
gave him a P45 when he left.
3.3. He moved from Panic Link to Courier Freight Services International, when
Panic Link were closing. Mr Logan was a director of that company and the two
men discussed and agreed terms, in 2001. No written statement of terms and
conditions of employment was issued and there is no documentary evidence
of the contract agreed between the two men.
3.4. Mr Hallsworth continued to work for Courier Freight Services until 2018.
3.5. The business of Courier Freight Services was bought and continued by NAM
Global Ltd in 2018.
Contract Terms
3.6. The terms agreed between Mr Hallsworth and Mr Logan were based on his
previous employed contract with Panic Link. Mr Hallsworth expressly wanted
the same terms. Knowing Panic Link was closing, Mr Logan offered to take Mr
Hallsworth on and they talked through the terms he had been on with Panic
Link. The discussion covered rate of pay, payment for annual holidays and
use of the vehicle Mr Hallsworth would be driving. The only thing that differed
from the arrangement with Panic Link was that Mr Logan asked him to present
an invoice reflecting the agreed daily rate, rather than offering to pay him
through PAYE. The daily rate was fixed at the rate which reflected Mr
Hallsworth’s previous salary.
3.7. It was an oral conversation, not recorded in writing at any time.
To continue reading
Request your trial