What is the background to the Workplace Relation Commissions (WRC’s) decision in Lingard v Randridge International Ltd?

This dispute arose from a contractual arrangement entered into between Mr Lingard’s private limited company, PSL (Aberdeen) Ltd (PSL), and Randridge International Ltd (Randridge). Initially, PSL was ostensibly retained to provide Mr Lingard’s services on an independent contractor basis. However, over time, Mr Lingard argued that his day-to-day reality came to resemble a contract of service rather than a contract for services. In April 2024, shortly before the arrangement ended, he claimed that he had become an employee of Randridge and thus brought a claim for unpaid wages under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Randridge disagreed, maintaining that the relationship remained purely commercial and pointing to provisions in the agreement that explicitly stated Mr Lingard was not entitled to rights under employment law.

Why was there a question about Mr Lingard’s employment status if a contract was in place stating he was an independent contractor engaged via a private limited company?

While the written agreement defined him as an independent contractor, employment law in Ireland is beginning to take a nuanced view of such classifications. The Supreme Court’s stance in Revenue Commissioners v Karshan Midlands (Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza) (Karshan) (discussed in more detail below) is that the label placed on a contract does not conclusively determine legal status – and the nuances of this test are discussed in more detail below. Instead, tribunals and courts examine the actual working conditions, including elements of control and obligation, to ascertain whether a genuine employment relationship has evolved. In this case, although Mr Lingard acknowledged he had operated on a contractor model for some time, he argued that his daily duties were subject to Randridge’s supervision in much the same way as a regular employee.

How did the WRC apply the Supreme Court’s five-factor Karshan test to decide Mr Lingard’s status?

The WRC relied on and applied the tests set out in Karshan.

First, they looked at whether the worker was receiving remuneration for work. In Mr Lingard’s case, while payment was channelled through PSL, the first factor was satisfied.
Second, they considered whether the services had to be provided personally. Although there was a contractual right of substitution, it was limited and never used.

Third, the WRC examined Randridge’s control over Mr Lingard. While day-to-day “micro” control of his activities was minimal, the contract contained explicit mechanisms—such as clocking in and out, deadlines, and restrictions on taking on other work—that gave Randridge considerable control over Mr Lingard.

Fourth, they assessed whether these factors, combined with the relevant contractual terms, were consistent with an employment relationship.

Finally, they weighed any other legislative considerations, concluding that Mr Lingard was indeed an employee for the purposes of his claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

What does the decision tell Irish employers about developing practice around “lifting the veil”?

The WRC’s decision emphasises that labels such as “independent contractor” or “consultant” may not protect organisations when the actual relationship points to employment. Employers cannot rely solely on corporate arrangements—such as paying an individual via their own limited company—to prove the absence of an employer-employee relationship. If, in reality, the individual is integrated into the business and subject to the level of control and direction characteristic of employment, the WRC may look behind the veil of that corporate structure. This means that a notional contract for services may morph into an effective contract of service if the circumstances on the ground indicate genuine employee status (and are not correctly managed to avoid that happening).

What did the WRC hold in respect of the “employer”?

The decision underlines the substantial risks that can arise when workers are misclassified. In this case Randridge was required to pay the outstanding invoices (which it had accepted as due and owing) to Mr Lingard as wages, in accordance with the WRC finding that he was in fact an employee.

Is there guidance on when a contract for services may effectively become a contract of service?

Yes. A revised Code of Practice was released jointly by the Department of Social Protection, Revenue, and the WRC, aligning with the five-factor framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Karshan. It clarifies that merely interposing a limited company between the worker and the end-user does not override an eventual finding of employment status if the real arrangement suggests otherwise. Moreover, it acknowledges that a relationship which begins on a self-employed footing can evolve into employment over time, particularly if the worker becomes increasingly dependent on the end-user and subject to greater managerial direction and control.

What lessons should Irish employers draw from the Lingard decision and similar cases?

Employers should recognise that tribunals in Ireland will broadly assess the substance of a working relationship rather than deferring to contractual labels. It is vital to ensure that contractors genuinely operate with the independence and entrepreneurial risk inherent in a contract for services. Ongoing reviews of contractor relationships can be prudent, especially in instances where the scope of work or the integration within the organisation changes significantly. If the reality on the ground points to employment, businesses must be prepared for potential obligations under the Payment of Wages Act, statutory leave schemes, and other employment protections. The Lingard decision underscores the need for vigilance, as even a well-drafted paper arrangement cannot alone shield an employer from liability if the everyday reality reflects an employment relationship.

A&L Goodbody LLP
Telephone: +35316492000 
Website: www.algoodbody.com