Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff served as a Coastguard Rescue Officer (CRO) with Company A from 1985 until termination in 2020. Following disciplinary proceedings, the Plaintiff's CRO status was terminated effective 5 June 2020. The Plaintiff sought to be accompanied by a trade union official from Company B at an appeal (a "Challenge Meeting") on 21 July 2020; Company A refused. The appeal was unsuccessful and the Plaintiff received a P45 on 8 September 2020.
The Plaintiff presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal (ET), initially including an unfair dismissal claim which was struck out as out of time. The ET was asked to determine as a preliminary issue whether the Plaintiff was a "worker" within s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the purposes of the statutory right to be accompanied and related statutory entitlements. Judge Cadney dismissed the claim, finding no "worker" status because there was no contractual obligation to provide services. On appeal, Judge Mansfield (sitting in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, EAT) set aside the ET's order and found that the Plaintiff was a "worker" when attending activities for which remuneration could be claimed. Company A appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the EAT was wrong to interfere with the ET's evaluative conclusion that the Plaintiff was not a "worker".
- Whether the arrangements between Company A and CROs involved mutual obligations and were contractual such that CROs are "workers" under s 230(3)(b) when attending certain activities.
- Whether, alternatively, any contractual mutuality of obligation exists only during attendances (and not as an overarching "umbrella" contract) and whether that suffices for "worker" status.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Attorney Tolley and team: The central question for the ET was factual—whether a contract existed—on which the ET's evaluative finding should be respected unless perverse. The ET correctly weighed documentation indicating a genuinely voluntary, non-contractual relationship. Describing the relationship as "voluntary" is strong evidence of that intention; Grayson supports treating volunteering as unilateral rather than a bilateral worker contract.
- The Appellant submitted that CROs were not legally obliged to continue assistance once they had begun and that "commitment" language in documents did not denote legal obligations.
Respondent's (Plaintiff's) Arguments
- Attorney Brittenden and Attorney Bogg: The documents granted express entitlement to claim and receive remuneration for attending and completing prescribed activities, and set minimum attendance/competence requirements; this evidences a wage/work bargain and consideration, pointing to worker status when attending paid activities.
- Mutuality of obligation need only exist during the period of work; absence of obligations outside attendances does not preclude worker status during attendances (citing authorities including James v Redcats and Somerville and reliance on the statutory interpretation approach in Uber).
- The Plaintiff could be subject to reasonable instructions, withholding of payment and discipline for non-compliance, supporting contractual obligations when attending.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson [2004] ICR 1138 |
Illustrates a pure volunteer relationship where reimbursement only does not create worker status; language of "reasonable expectation" not contractual. |
The ET relied on Grayson to support no contract; the EAT and Court distinguished Grayson on the basis that there was express entitlement to remuneration here. |
| James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] ICR 1006 |
Shows lack of an umbrella contract does not determine status when actually working; mutuality can exist only during engagements. |
Relied upon to support the proposition that worker status can arise during discrete periods of work despite gaps. |
| Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville [2022] ICR 755 |
Absence of an obligation to be available at particular times does not preclude worker status when working; mutuality and control can be satisfied during work periods. |
Used to reject the Appellant's argument that lack of obligation to attend precludes worker status. |
| Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5; [2021] 4 All ER 209 |
Adopts a statutory interpretation approach to "worker"; confirmed that freedom to choose when to work does not preclude worker status when working. |
Key authority for treating statutory definition as paramount; the Court applied Uber's approach to conclude CROs can be workers when attending paid activities. |
| Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] ICR 1157 |
Documents may not reflect reality; courts look at substance over form in determining status. |
Cited to support analysis that documents reflecting reality are central, but not determinative where statutory interpretation applies. |
| Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1967] 2 QB 497 |
Classical indicators of a contract of service; remuneration as an indicator of intention to create legal relations. |
Referenced to underline that payment is a strong indication of a wage/work bargain. |
| McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment [1997] ICR 549 |
Freedom to work or not does not preclude worker/employee status when working. |
Applied to show that lack of obligation outside work does not bar worker status during work. |
| Cornwall County Council v Prater [2006] EWCA Civ 102; [2006] ICR 731 |
Addresses casual/seasonal work and status during engagements despite intervals. |
Supported the view that status can attach during discrete periods of work. |
| Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2025] 1 All ER 289 |
Pre-conditions of mutuality of obligation and control can be satisfied during the period of paid work even if obligations do not exist outside that period. |
Described as confirming that a contract covering only the period of paid work can exist; Court said this puts answer beyond doubt. |
| Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP [2014] UKSC 32; [2014] 1 WLR 2047 |
Statutory interpretation and application of statutory definitions to facts. |
Cited for principle that there is no substitute for applying statutory words to facts. |
| Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 494 |
Where an arrangement is a business arrangement, there is a heavy burden on a party asserting no legal effect was intended. |
Relied on to reject suggestion that the parties intended no legal relations. |
| Murray v CAB [2001] ICR 708 |
Addresses enforceability of payment arrangements for volunteers. |
Cited to reject the Appellant's argument that remuneration provisions created no enforceable right. |
| Cotswold v Williams [2006] IRLR 181 |
Described a "wage/work bargain" as illustrative of mutual obligations. |
Used to characterise the arrangement here as consistent with a wage/work bargain. |
| X v Mid-Sussex CAB [2011] ICR 460 |
Volunteers vary in legal status; cannot assume uniformity among volunteers. |
Applied to distinguish true volunteer cases (like Grayson) from the present case where remuneration existed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court (Judge Bean, with agreement from Judge Popplewell and Judge Stuart-Smith) framed the question narrowly: whether the Plaintiff was a "worker" under s 230(3)(b) when attending activities for which remuneration could be claimed. The Court applied statutory interpretation (following Uber) rather than treating the documents as determinative in isolation, while acknowledging the documents were central because they reflected reality.
The Court analysed the three governing documents (Volunteer Handbook, Code of Conduct, Remuneration Document) and concluded they formed a coherent scheme: CROs were free to choose whether to attend, but when they did attend for remunerated activities they were subject to reasonable instructions and entitled to claim payment. The existence of an express entitlement to remuneration, payslips, P60s/P45s and hourly rates at or above the national minimum wage were strong indicators of a wage/work bargain and of an intention to create legal relations.
The Court rejected the Appellant's submission that labeling the relationship "voluntary" or requiring claims for payment (rather than automatic pay) precluded a contractual relationship. It held that mutuality of obligation and control sufficient for worker status can exist during the period of attendance even if no obligations exist between engagements (relying on Uber, James, Somerville, and the Professional Game Match Officials decision). The Court concluded that a contract for services arises when a CRO attends a remunerated activity and thereby becomes a "worker" for that period.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
Holding: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the EAT's substituted finding that the Plaintiff was a "worker" within s 230(3)(b) when attending activities for which remuneration could be claimed.
Implications: The direct effect is that the Plaintiff's status as a "worker" for remunerated attendances is confirmed. The judgment indicates potentially wide application to other CROs and to volunteers more generally where similar documentary schemes exist, and it endorses the approach that worker status can arise for discrete periods of paid activity even where no umbrella contract or ongoing mutual obligations exist between engagements.
Click here to read the full judgment