Housekeeper in shared home not an employee: claim dismissed with costs order
A woman who lived in a man's home and performed housekeeping tasks was found not to be an employee or worker, leading to dismissal of her unfair dismissal claim and a costs order of £11,130.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #employee-status
- #worker-status
- #mutuality-of-obligation
- #shared-domestic-arrangement
- #costs-order
- #no-reasonable-prospect
Key facts
- The claimant lived in the respondent's house and performed housekeeping tasks.
- The claimant could come and go as she pleased and worked elsewhere occasionally.
- The claimant contributed to food and running costs of the house.
- The claimant had no expectation of being paid wages.
- The respondent offered £10,000 to settle, which the claimant rejected.
- The claimant had received £100,000 to vacate the property.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages.
-
ACAS settlement offer
ACAS put forward an offer of £10,000 from the respondent to settle the claim, which the claimant rejected.
-
Respondent's letter
The respondent sent a letter to the claimant setting out arguments that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and warning of a costs application.
-
Preliminary hearing adjourned
A preliminary hearing to decide employment status was adjourned.
-
Substantive hearing
The tribunal heard the case and found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, dismissing all claims. The respondent applied for costs.
-
Costs judgment
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £11,130 in costs.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a person living in a shared domestic arrangement and performing housekeeping tasks was an employee or worker entitled to bring claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the claimant was not an employee or worker. The key reasons were: the claimant could come and go as she pleased, worked elsewhere occasionally, contributed to food and running costs, and had no expectation of wages. The respondent had offered £10,000 to settle, which was rejected, and the claimant had already received £100,000 to vacate the property.
Compensation:
- Costs order: £11,130
Lessons & takeaways
- Living in someone's home and helping with chores does not automatically create an employment relationship — there must be a contract with mutual obligations and payment of wages.
- Rejecting a reasonable settlement offer can lead to a costs order if you later lose and the tribunal finds your claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
- If you receive a warning letter from the other side about costs, take it seriously — it shows they may apply for costs if you proceed and lose.
- Employment status depends on the specific facts of the arrangement, not just the tasks performed.
A shared living arrangement, not an employment contract
This case highlights the importance of understanding employment status when bringing a claim. The claimant lived in the respondent's home and performed housekeeping tasks, but the tribunal found this was a shared domestic arrangement rather than an employment relationship. She could come and go as she pleased, worked elsewhere occasionally, and contributed to food and running costs. Crucially, there was no expectation of wages.
What the respondent could have done differently
The respondent had already offered £10,000 to settle the claim, which the claimant rejected. He also sent a letter warning that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that he would seek costs. Despite this, the claimant proceeded. The tribunal ultimately found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and ordered the claimant to pay £11,130 in costs.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case serves as a cautionary tale for those considering bringing employment claims without a clear employment relationship. The tribunal will look at the reality of the arrangement, not just the tasks performed. If there is no contract, no obligation to provide or perform work, and no wages, it is unlikely that an employment relationship exists. Proceeding with a weak claim can result in significant costs liability.
Similar cases
School delivery driver and taxi driver: employment status settled before final hearing
A tribunal found that a school delivery driver was an employee for that role but only a worker for taxi work. The case settled before the final hearing, with no compensation awarded.
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Independent clerk to school appeals panels was a worker, not an employee — claims out of time
A long-serving independent clerk who worked for Royal Borough of Greenwich for 28 years was found to be a worker rather than an employee, meaning her unfair dismissal claim could not proceed. Her remaining claims for holiday pay and expenses were also dismissed as too late.
Dog walker with set hours found to be employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination win
A dog walker who worked set hours for five years was found to be an employee, not a self-employed contractor, and awarded over £11,700 for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.