Personal service company worker wins right to argue employee status at final hearing

What this case shows in practice

This case illustrates how the employment status of workers supplied through personal service companies can be far from straightforward. The claimant, a former worker for Kier Highways Limited, had his unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims initially struck out because he had no direct contract with either the agency or the end-user. However, on reconsideration, the tribunal recognised that the issue of whether he was actually an employee of Kier Highways was too fact-sensitive to be decided at a preliminary stage.

What the losing side could have done differently

Kier Highways successfully argued at the first hearing that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing employee status. But the tribunal's provisional view on reconsideration highlighted that the respondent's insistence on the claimant personally — a key factor from the case of James v London Borough of Greenwich — could support his case. The respondent might have been better advised to wait for a full hearing rather than pushing for a strike-out, especially given the complexity of the law and the claimant's status as a litigant in person.

Why the result matters for similar claims

This decision is a reminder that tribunals are reluctant to shut out claims on status grounds without a full exploration of the facts. For anyone working through a personal service company or agency, it shows that the absence of a direct contract is not necessarily fatal to an employee status argument. The tribunal will look at the entire relationship, including any control exercised by the end-user and whether they required a specific individual. The case also underscores the importance of the overriding objective — tribunals will give some leeway to litigants in person, but they are also expected to cooperate and respond concisely to directions.