Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
A plumber who was required to perform work personally, and was subject to tight control, was a worker, even though he was treated as self employed for tax purposes.
Facts
Mr Smith worked as a plumber for Pimlico Plumbers for about six years. His agreement described him as a self employed operative, and he paid his own tax and provided his own tools and van. However, he had to wear the company's uniform, drive a van with its logo, work a minimum number of hours, and follow its instructions. He had only a limited right to send a substitute, which was another Pimlico operative. After he had a heart attack and asked to reduce his hours, his engagement ended, and he brought claims including disability discrimination.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that Mr Smith was a worker within the Employment Rights Act 1996 and in employment under the Equality Act 2010. Lord Wilson said that the dominant feature of the contract was an obligation of personal performance, because Mr Smith's right of substitution was limited to replacing himself with another Pimlico operative, so he was not free to send anyone he chose. Pimlico was not a client or customer of Mr Smith's business, because of the tight control it exercised over him, including over his appearance, his working hours and the payment terms.
Related cases on employment status
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [2011] ICR 1157
- Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 973
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP [2014] UKSC 32, [2014] 1 WLR 2047
- Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042
- Express and Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton [1999] ICR 693
- Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee [2023] UKSC 43
- James v Greenwich London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 35, [2008] ICR 545
- James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] ICR 1006
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
