“Supreme Court finds plumber was worker despite self-employment contract”
Gary Smith worked for Pimlico Plumbers for six years under contracts describing him as self-employed. He was required to wear the company uniform, drive a branded van, work set minimum hours, and could not provide substitutes without approval. When he suffered a heart attack and requested to reduce his hours, the company terminated his contract and demanded return of the van.
Whether Mr Smith was a 'worker' within the meaning of employment legislation despite contractual provisions describing him as an independent contractor, and whether he could bring claims for holiday pay and disability discrimination.
The Supreme Court held that Mr Smith was a worker entitled to employment protection rights. The contractual label of self-employment was not determinative when the reality of the relationship showed personal service and subordination.
This case significantly clarified the test for worker status in the gig economy, emphasizing that courts will look beyond contractual labels to examine the practical reality of working relationships. It has major implications for platform economy workers and the boundaries of employment protection.
You're reading the free summary of Pimlico Plumbers v Smith. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29, [2018] ICR 1511
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.