Dr Mark Ter-Berg v Parul Malde & Anor

Dr Mark Ter-Berg v Parul Malde & Anor

The tribunal erred in concluding that the personal-service requirement was not met and in treating previous findings on employee status as determinative of worker status; the correct construction of clause 36 and the facts found indicate the personal-service requirement was satisfied; the question of whether the claimant was a worker turns on whether the company was a client or customer of a business undertaking carried on by the claimant, which must be determined afresh.

Parties
Appellant: Dr Mark Ter-Berg; Respondent: Mr Parul Malde; Respondent: Dr Colin Hancock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; tribunal's decision quashed; matter remitted for determination of third limb of worker test.
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Employment Status, Personal Service, Mutuality of Obligation, Control, Contract Interpretation
Employment Law Worker Status Employment Status Personal Service Mutuality of Obligation Control Contract Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Mark Ter-Berg

Appellant

Mr Parul Malde

Respondent

Dr Colin Hancock

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a 'worker' under section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the contract imposed an obligation of personal service
  3. 3 Whether previous findings on employee status preclude worker status

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal erred in concluding that the personal-service requirement was not met and in treating previous findings on employee status as determinative of worker status; the correct construction of clause 36 and the facts found indicate the personal-service requirement was satisfied; the question of whether the claimant was a worker turns on whether the company was a client or customer of a business undertaking carried on by the claimant, which must be determined afresh.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; tribunal's decision quashed; matter remitted for determination of third limb of worker test.

Orders

  • The tribunal's decision that the claimant was not a worker is quashed.
  • The matter is remitted to the employment tribunal for determination of whether the company was a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the claimant.