The claimant ran a gardening business and took on the ground management contract of a cricket club he had been an active member of over the years. The contract required his business work 40 hours a week during the summer months and sometimes longer. The employment judge found the claimant was not a worker or employee, partly because the claimant’s business had a turnover of £40k of which the cricket club accounted for £22k and even though the contract required some tasks to be undertaken personally by the claimant.

In this appeal, HHJ James Tayler agreed with that conclusion noting “agreement to do work personally does not necessarily make a person an employee”. He also comments [22] on appeals based on Meek grounds:

“Employment tribunal judgments should not be so broadly read as to make them appeal proof. That said concission is to be welcomed. Meek compliance appears to be raised in the majority of appeals to the EAT, often as a subsidiary ground together with perversity, but it is an argument that seldom succeeds. That is because there is a misconception about the degree of detail that is required for a party to know why they won or lost. The parties must be able to see the wood, but not necessarily all of the trees.”

In this case he finds the judgment, though concise, was Meek compliant and the claimant was seeking “to undertake a minute factual analysis of the judgment in a manner that is not permissible on appeal.” He therefore dismissed the appeal.