• Contact Us

Supreme Court Upholds 'Worker Status' Decision in Pimlico Plumbers Case

on Friday, 22 June 2018.

In the widely-reported case of Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Mullins v Smith, the Supreme Court has upheld the decision that a plumber was engaged as a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998...

...despite the wording of his contract purporting to make him an independent contractor.

Relevant Law

A worker is defined under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) as an individual who has entered into or works under:

  • a contract of employment; or
  • any other contract whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract, who is not a client or customer of the individual.

If a contract contains a genuine and unfettered right of substitution there will be no personal service under the second point of the test set out above.  

Whilst workers do not benefit from the full range of protection afforded to employees, they are entitled to paid holidays, protection from discrimination and the national minimum wage. 

The Case of Pimlico Plumbers

Mr Smith worked for Pimlico Plumbers (PP) from 2005 under an agreement which labelled him as an independent contractor. PP terminated the agreement in 2011, 4 months after Mr Smith suffered a heart attack.

Following the termination, Mr Smith brought claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, entitlement to pay during medical suspension, holiday pay, unlawful deductions from wages, disability discrimination and failure to provide written particulars of employment.

At a preliminary hearing the Employment Tribunal (ET) held that whilst Mr Smith was not an employee he was a worker. In practice there was only a limited right of substitution and he was subject to tight controls by PP. PP appealed against this decision to the EAT and then to the Court of Appeal, both of which upheld the original findings.

Further details of the background to the case and analysis of these earlier decisions can be read here.

PP appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Decision

The Court dismissed the appeal. The ET was entitled to find  that despite the express wording of the contract describing Mr Smith as an independent contractor he was, in fact, a worker.  

Practical Implications

Whilst this case has made headlines, it is very fact-specific and does not provide much in the way of further clarification in relation to 'worker' status. It is therefore unlikely to have much of an impact on other ongoing gig economy claims involving companies such as Uber and Deliveroo.

However, the case does serve as a useful reminder to employers to ensure that their written contracts accurately reflect the reality of the working relationship in practice. With that in mind, employers should keep a close eye on how they engage independent contractors and workers, particularly if they are working in a changing or developing workplace.


For more information, please contact Michael Halsey in our Employment Law team on 020 7665 0842.

Leave a comment

You are commenting as guest.