Mr Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Judge | Gavin Mansfield,Deputy Judge |
| Published date | 09 May 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down
Groom v Maritime & Coastguard Agency
© EAT 2024
Page 1
[2024] EAT 71
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 71
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Case No: EA-2022-000623-AS
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 9 May 2024
Before:
GAVIN MANSFIELD KC
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE
Between:
MR MARTIN GROOM Appellant
- and –
MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Stuart Brittenden KC (instructed by Pattinson & Brewer Solicitors LLP) for the Appellant
Mr Julian Allsop and Mr Mike Blitz (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the
Respondent
Hearing date: 15 February 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down
Groom v Maritime & Coastguard Agency
© EAT 2024
Page 2
[2024] EAT 71
SUMMARY
EMPLOYEE, WORKER, OR SELF–EMPLOYED
The Claimant was a volunteer in the Coastal Rescue Service. He appealed against the Tribunal’s
decision that he was not a Limb (b) worker under section 13(1)(a) Employment Relations Act 1999
and section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. On an analysis of the documents governing the
relationship between the parties, the Tribunal found that there was no contract at all between them.
“Volunteer” is not a term of art, and volunteers hold no special status as a matter of law. The legal
status of any volunteer depends upon analysis of the particular relationship under which the
volunteer’s services are provided.
In applying the Limb (b) worker test, the Tribunal correctly said that the first question was whether
there was a contract between the parties at all. The Tribunal held that, in the circumstances of this
case, the answer to that question was a matter of construction and interpretation of the documents
governing the relationship. As a matter of construction, the Tribunal held there was no contract.
Given the way the case was argued by the Claimant in the Tribunal, it was not now open to the
Claimant to argue that there was an umbrella or overarching contract. The question was whether the
tribunal erred in finding there was no contract in relation to individual activities attended by the
Claimant.
The tribunal erred in its analysis of the Respondent’s obligation to remunerate the Claimant. The
documents created a clear right to remuneration in respect of many activities, and it was irrelevant
that the Claimant had to submit a claim for payment and that many volunteers in practice did not do
so. The tribunal also erred in its analysis of the requirement of mutuality of obligation in relation to
attendance at an individual activity. Overall, the tribunal erred in the construction of the documents:
on a proper construction, there plainly was a contract which came into existence when the Claimant
provided services at an activity in respect of which there had been a promise of remuneration. The
appeal was allowed.
There was no dispute that the obligation (if it existed) was for personal service; nor that Claimant was
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
