Employment tribunal and court judgments | July 2025

Mr Scully provided care for his brother, S, who received funding from the local authority in the form of direct payments under the Care Act 2014. These funds were used to pay Mr Scully for his care work.

Mr Scully subsequently brought claims against the council for discrimination and unpaid wages, asserting that he was, in reality, employed by the council. While it was accepted that he performed his caring role under a contract of employment, the council disputed that it had ever acted as his employer.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that from April 2013, V, the mother, had control over the care budget, with the family receiving direct payments to fund that care. Mr Scully had a clear contract of employment with his brother, and his payslips identified his brother as his employer. V was responsible for arranging care cover, recruiting carers, and had previously dismissed one.

The Council did not provide training, appraisals, or any performance management in relation to Mr Scully. Based on the evidence, the ET concluded that Mr Scully was employed by his brother (or V on his behalf), not by the Council, and dismissed all claims. The Tribunal acknowledged there was “significant doubt” over S’s legal capacity but declined to make a determination due to the absence of medical evidence.

Mr Scully appealed on two principal grounds:

1. that the Employment Tribunal had failed to take into account the statutory purpose underlying the Care Act 2014, and
2. that it had not considered the possibility that his contract of employment with S may have been invalid due to S’s lack of legal capacity. He contended that, had the Tribunal properly addressed these issues, it would have found that the Council was, in fact, his employer.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that Mr Scully was not employed by the council. There was no express or implied contract between them. Key reasons included:

• Mr Scully’s payslips listed his brother as his employer.
• His brother’s family arranged cover when Mr Scully was unavailable, not the council.
• Mr Scully’s mother controlled who provided care, and had previously dismissed a carer.
• The council gave Mr Scully no training.
• The council did not supervise or manage Mr Scully’s work.

There was no need to imply a contract with the council because a valid employment relationship could exist between Mr Scully and his brother. Even if his brother lacked capacity, that would make the arrangement voidable – not automatically void.

Employment Tribunals focus on who controls day-to-day work, not who provides the money. Employers must ensure that lines of responsibility are clearly defined and documented.

Mr Logo, a Black British employee, brought claims of race harassment against his employer, Payone GmbH, under the Equality Act 2010.

They included:

• A colleague attended a work party wearing blackface makeup;
• A colleague told Mr Logo they’d heard a rude joke involving a black man and an animal; and
• A 2020 WhatsApp image (a “Pure Blonde” beer ad) which he viewed as racially offensive and alleged harassment.

The Tribunal found the first two incidents had occurred and amounted to racial harassment because of their effect on Mr Logo. However, it ruled the claims were out of time and declined to extend the deadline, leaving Mr Logo with no remedy. The main reason given was that the delay had affected the accused individuals’ recollections.

The Tribunal dismissed the final claim, finding it unrelated to race.

With regards to the first two incidents, the EAT disagreed with the ET. Since the Tribunal had found the incidents had occurred and accepted that they had a harassing effect on Mr Logo, concerns about the perpetrators’ recollections were irrelevant. The Tribunal had concluded that the incidents were harassment based on the effect on the victim, not the intention of the accused.

In relation to the harassment claim, the EAT again disagreed with the ET, holding that the Tribunal had been wrong to conclude that the circulation of a video “that depicts a utopia of white, blond people who are ‘pure’” did not ‘relate to’ race. When looking at the effect of the video the Tribunal had also failed to consider the perception of Mr Logo – focussing instead on the fact that the person posting it thought it was funny.

Tribunals must apply the harassment test correctly, considering the employee’s perception and the racial context – not just intent. Employers should ensure that seemingly minor or historic incidents are taken seriously if they have a racially offensive or harassing effect.

Ms Lindup was a top-performing sales executive with Bright HR Ltd. She went on maternity leave in February 2022 and a new head of sales, Jayde Stott, took over during her absence. In an October 2022 meeting, when asked about returning to her previous role, Ms Lindup was dismissed and ridiculed with Stott reportedly “laughing” at the prospect.

Ms Lindip’s role and earnings were significantly downgraded from approximately £65,000 pre-leave to around £24,000 post-return.  She alleged this constituted maternity discrimination under Section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.

The Tribunal concluded that the change in role and resulting reduction in earnings had severe personal consequences for Ms Lindup. It found no credible justification for Bright HR’s decision to place her in a lower-paid role following her maternity leave.

Employment Judge Abigail Holt remarked that it was “unreasonable and irrational” for the company to overlook redeploying a high-performing member of its web sales team – someone they had recently celebrated for generating £1.3 million in sales within a year.

The Tribunal also criticised Ms Stott’s conduct as defensive and lacking sensitivity, and ultimately dismissed the company’s explanation for the altered role and pay as unconvincing.

Employers must not repurpose or downgrade the roles of employees returning from maternity leave, especially without clear justification and consultation. Moreover, it is important for employers to consider commercial things like PR and reputation when approaching litigation.