Gary Smith carried out plumbing work for Pimlico Plumbers (PP) between 2005 and 2011. He had entered into agreements with PP which stated that he was a “sub contracted employee” and later a “self-employed operative” of the business. He was required to comply with the rules in a company manual, including a requirement to work a minimum of 40 hours a week, and he paid rental charges to PP for the use of their work van and mobile phone.

The Court of Appeal looked at characteristics of the relationship between PP and Mr Smith to determine whether he had worked as an independent contractor. The issue of personal service – whether a person is required to carry out work personally or whether they can delegate tasks to another person – was a key issue at the appeal as a requirement for personal service tends to indicate an employment relationship. The Court of Appeal found that Mr Smith was personally required to carry out the plumbing work himself and neither his agreement with PP nor their manual permitted him to get a substitute to perform tasks on his behalf. The Court of Appeal also found that PP exercised a degree of control over Mr Smith that was inconsistent with them being a customer or client of a business run by him.

“The essential point was…that the evidence showed that Mr Smith was obliged to work (or be available for work), subject to the various elements of flexibility that [the Employment Tribunal judge] identified, essentially on a full-time basis and that he could not be properly said to be working on a casual basis.” The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal considered Mr Smith’s hours of work and found that he was obliged to work 40 hours a week, even if PP did not enforce that rule. In practice, the rental charges incurred by Mr Smith in using PP’s van and mobile phone meant that he had to work for at least 40 hours a week in order to earn sufficient money to provide him with a decent income.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The case is another in the chain of decisions regarding the employment status of those working in the “gig economy”, such as the recent Uber case. It shows that the courts remain keen to look beyond the smokescreen of the contractual arrangement between businesses and those who work for them in order to determine the true nature of the working relationship in practice.

Photograph: “Infrastructural (18/365)” by Flikr user Rex Babiera used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license