| 
A carer paid by his brother using money from the local authority was not employed by the local authority
It’s a basic requirement when claiming employment rights that the claimant is, in fact, an employee of the respondent. But sometimes, especially in the context of care, the lines can be blurred. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Scully v Northamptonshire County Council clarifies the distinction between care funding arrangements and employment relationships.
Mr Scully cared for his brother, who received direct payments from the local authority to fund his own care. Mr Scully was paid using this money. He later brought employment claims – including for unpaid wages and discrimination – against the Council, arguing that he was effectively employed by them.
Both the tribunal and the EAT disagreed. The EAT found no express or implied contract of employment between Mr Scully and the Council. Several facts supported this conclusion:
- His payslips named his brother as the employer.
- Care cover was arranged by the family, not the Council.
- His mother had control over care arrangements, including dismissing carers.
- The Council provided no training, supervision, or management of Mr Scully’s work.
- There was no legal need to imply a contract with the Council, as a valid employment relationship could exist between Mr Scully and his brother – even if the brother lacked capacity (as a lack of capacity would have made a contract voidable but not void).
This case is a reminder that not all funding relationships create employment. For HR professionals, particularly in public or care sectors, it reinforces the importance of clear contracting and understanding of who holds the real legal responsibilities in care arrangements.