Resolved Case: Piotr Mossak v Narbuild Limited
This case is a useful example of why being called a CIS subcontractor does not necessarily mean that you have no employment rights.
Piotr worked for Narbuild Limited from around January 2024 until January 2025. The company treated him as self-employed and relied on CIS records. However, the practical working relationship told a different story.
Piotr:
worked mainly for Narbuild;
was paid a daily rate, initially £130 and later £150;
worked regular hours, generally from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm;
received instructions about his shifts and finishing times;
worked as part of Narbuild’s team;
did not submit ordinary commercial invoices;
did not market an independent business to different customers; and
depended on Narbuild as his main source of income.
The evidence included WhatsApp messages, voice recordings, bank statements, CIS records and documents showing how the work was organised.
What Was the Main Dispute?
Narbuild argued that Piotr was a self-employed CIS subcontractor rather than a worker or employee.
However, CIS registration is primarily a tax arrangement. It does not conclusively determine employment status for rights such as:
holiday pay;
protection from unlawful deductions;
written employment particulars; and
other statutory protections.
The real question was whether Piotr was genuinely running an independent business with Narbuild as his customer, or whether he was personally providing labour as part of Narbuild’s business.
Problems with the CIS Records
The CIS records did not clearly match the payments shown in Piotr’s bank statements.
Piotr had not received regular CIS payment and deduction statements, and the respondent’s records did not fully explain:
the days worked;
the amounts paid;
the daily rates applied;
the deductions made; or
why the figures differed from the actual bank payments.
This was important because a company cannot simply rely on the label “CIS subcontractor” without explaining how the arrangement operated in reality.
Employment Tribunal Outcome
The claim proceeded in the Employment Tribunal as:
Piotr Mossak v Narbuild LimitedCase number: 2204000/2025
The Tribunal awarded Piotr £10,080.
The award included sums arising from the employment relationship and demonstrated that the CIS label did not prevent the Tribunal from recognising and enforcing his statutory rights.
Interest began to run on the judgment from 17 June 2026 at 8% per year.
What Happened After Judgment?
Narbuild applied for reconsideration and sought to prevent or delay enforcement.
However, an application for reconsideration does not automatically cancel the judgment. Unless the Tribunal grants a stay, the judgment remains legally enforceable.
Enforcement steps were therefore prepared, including:
ACAS and Tribunal enforcement procedures;
High Court enforcement;
formal demands for payment;
protection against the movement or dissipation of company assets; and
potential insolvency action if the judgment remained unpaid.
The case is therefore an example of a successful Tribunal judgment, although payment and enforcement must be distinguished from winning the underlying claim.
Main Lessons for Subcontractors
Do not assume that CIS registration decides your legal status.
Keep evidence showing:
who set your working hours;
who instructed and supervised you;
whether you could genuinely send a substitute;
whether you had your own customers;
whether you submitted genuine commercial invoices;
who supplied materials and organised the work;
whether you worked as part of the contractor’s team; and
whether the CIS records match the money actually paid.
A contractor may call you self-employed, but the Tribunal will examine the real working relationship.
Outcome
Employment Tribunal judgment secured: £10,080, with statutory interest running from 17 June 2026. Enforcement action followed when payment was not made voluntarily.
Topics: Resolved Cases · CIS and Worker Status · Unlawful Deductions · Holiday Pay · Legal Action