A nightclub dancer who was offered work by a consultant solicitor has had her Employment Tribunal claim dismissed after it was concluded that she was not employed by the firm. The now-deceased solicitor, referred to only as AD, had approached the woman at the club and offered her a job as his personal secretary.

AD was a consultant solicitor with Eldwick Law, based in London and Bradford, and met the woman at a casino. The woman, known only as BR, had a young son and was studying part-time for a graduate diploma in law. She later told the Tribunal she was offered a base salary of £14,000 and a 10% bonus. She claimed to have been told by AD that her background in West End hospitality would be an asset as she would be able to entertain and work alongside high net worth clients.

She was told that in her role, AD was ‘God’ and she was an ‘obedient little slave creature’ who was to work four days a week. No contract was provided, no bank account details were taken, there was no induction and AD did not pay the woman for the work she did or for expenses she incurred on his behalf. The Tribunal heard that AD ultimately went to the claimant’s home and assaulted her and her four-year-old son, and was arrested by the police.

Employers can be liable for a range of actions committed by their employees in the course of their employment – including bullying and harassment, violent or discriminatory acts, health and safety breaches or even libel and breach of copyright. This is known as vicarious liability.

BR brought proceedings on the basis that she was employed by Eldwick Law. The firm said she never came to its office and she never met anyone else who worked there. It was accepted by the Tribunal that she had no relationship with the firm or its managers.

AD’s consultancy agreement was ended by the firm after he was investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority but refused to say what the investigation was about.

Employment Judge Martin said:

“What I have heard about the first Respondent is extraordinary. He offered the Claimant terms which do not reflect how secretarial staff are remunerated by the second Respondent and misrepresented his hourly rate. He acted entirely inappropriately towards the Claimant, and it is surprising that she did not report him to the second Respondent if she truly believed she was employed by them. Her argument that she did not want to anger him does not ring true especially after he assaulted her and her child. When she was not paid, she did not contact the second Respondent and communicated only with the first Respondent. I appreciate she says that she did not want to upset the first Respondent, however given his behaviour, and him not paying her I still find it surprising that if she thought she was employed by the second Respondent she did not raise these issues with it. My finding is that the Claimant was employed by the first Respondent only. She was not employed by the second Respondent. The claim against the second Respondent is therefore dismissed.”

The Tribunal found that the woman was employed by AD and not by the firm, and the claim against the firm was dismissed.