The Supreme Court has today dismissed Pimlico Plumbers (PP)’s appeal against a tribunal decision that plumber Gary Smith was a ‘worker’ (ie an individual who has undertaken to perform work personally for someone who is not his client or customer) with workers’ rights. The law is largely unchanged by the ruling, and its fact-specific nature means that it only provides limited guidance for similar cases.

In Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith, the Supreme Court found that Mr Smith’s ability to choose to use a substitute did not prevent there being a sufficient obligation of personal service, given that he could only use a substitute from the ranks of other PP operatives bound by similar obligations. The Court framed the test slightly differently from earlier courts, suggesting that it would be helpful to assess whether the “dominant feature of the contract” remained an obligation of personal performance. Factors justifying the tribunal’s conclusion that it did included that (i) the requirement for substitutes to be PP operatives indicated that the company had a clear interest in who performed the work, as opposed to caring simply that the work got done, and (ii) the written contract itself didn’t mention the right to substitute, and set out requirements of Mr Smith expressly (as to his skills, appearance etc) rather than referring to requirements extending to him or any substitute. Continue reading →