PIMLICO ROUND 2: MR ROSE V PIMLICO PLUMBERS LTD
- TMP Solicitors
- Dec 12, 2025
- 3 min read
Today, 9 December 2025, the Reserved Judgment was handed down from the two-day hearing on 8 and 9 October 2025 in the London South Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Hart.
The Tribunal declared that Pimlico Plumbers’ business model had not significantly changed since the Smith case to alter the worker-status outcome.
EJ Hart’s reserved judgment adds another chapter to the evolving jurisprudence on “worker” status under UK law, and it does so in a way that will resonate with anyone familiar with Pimlico Plumbers’ long-running litigation history. Building squarely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29, the Tribunal examined not the labels in the paperwork but the practical reality of how Mr Gideon Rose provided his services and concluded that he was a “worker” within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the parallel definitions in the Working Time Regulations.
At the heart of the decision is the classic triad of personal service, control, and integration. The Tribunal’s reasoning aligns closely with Autoclenz v Belcher and Uber BV v Aslam: a contractual right of substitution that is hedged about with conditions, subject to approval, or rarely operable in practice, will not defeat personal service. In Mr Rose’s case, the Tribunal found that any purported freedom to substitute was, in substance, constrained to such a degree that it did not meaningfully detract from an obligation of personal service.
Control was equally determinative. The Tribunal focused on the operational features that have become familiar in this sector: strict branding and uniform requirements; centralised job allocation; company-dictated customer engagement protocols; and pricing structures effectively set or managed by the business. These factors evidenced a material degree of subordination inconsistent with an individual genuinely operating their own independent enterprise. When combined with the way Mr Rose was presented to customers (projected outwardly as part of Pimlico’s undertaking rather than as a separate business) the economic reality pointed firmly toward worker status.
Judicial comments in the judgment are notably favourable to Mr Rose. The Tribunal emphasised that the Respondent’s reliance on contractual drafting and presentation could not override the day-to-day reality. In tone and substance, the reasoning mirrors the Supreme Court’s warning in Smith: tribunals must look past labels and ask what actually happens on the ground. The Tribunal was clear that the balance of factors favoured recognition of worker rights.
"...tribunals must look past labels and ask what actually happens on the ground."
Crucially, the Tribunal said that Pimlico Plumbers’ business model had not, in practical terms, been materially reconfigured since the Smith litigation to shift the outcome of the worker-status analysis. Despite any incremental tweaks to contractual language, the core dynamics remained familiar: tight brand control, prescribed customer interactions, central job management, and limited space for genuine entrepreneurial freedom. In short, the substance had not changed sufficiently to alter the legal character of the relationship.
The legal significance is twofold. First, it reaffirms that a genuine right of substitution must be real, exercisable in practice, and not heavily fettered by approval rights or operational constraints. Second, it underscores that control and integration are pivotal: where a company orchestrates pricing, branding, customer allocation, and conduct to a substantial degree, the individual is unlikely to be seen as running their own business. Businesses that continue to trade on contractual labels while retaining control over the essential features of service delivery should expect tribunals to find worker status and the consequent entitlements to holiday pay, the National Minimum Wage, protection from unlawful deductions, and related statutory rights.
For platforms and traditional service businesses alike, the message is unchanged and now further entrenched: substance over form.
This judgment ultimately confirms that Pimlico Plumbers’ practices continue to sit on the wrong side of the worker-status line. Pimlico still does not treat its workers fairly, and government action is necessary to prevent employers from exploiting their staff.
See judgment below:
Comments