The Claimant, who was appointed as a panel member chair of the Respondent's committee, brought a claim in the ET for unpaid statutory holiday pay. The Respondent resisted the Claimant's contention that he was an employee or worker, but the ET found that, in light of the contracts that existed between the parties, the Claimant was a worker within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA") and regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Respondent appealed on grounds including that the Claimant could not be a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) ERA, because mutuality in the sense of the existence of an irreducible minimum of obligation was a prerequisite to satisfying the statutory definition.

The EAT reviewed the applicable case law and held that the ET did not err in law in concluding that the absence of an irreducible minimum of obligation was not incompatible with the Claimant having worker status; further, the ET's findings afforded proper support for its conclusion that the first part of the statutory definition was satisfied (namely, that the Claimant had "entered into or … worked under … any other contract … whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work of services for another party to the contract").