Simon McCrossan : Six Years At The Bar, Out Of Time

Today’s Chambers Chatter stays at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, where barrister Wendy Miller is an associate member. Wendy can sit this one out and plan her next witness-intimidation fantasy. Our attention belongs to Simon McCrossan. His latest advertised victory involves a woman who managed a football-club bar for six years. Her working relationship ended during a WhatsApp telephone call. Her husband was seriously ill and died weeks later. By the time her case reached an Employment Tribunal, the other side had found two reasons not to examine whether ending her work was fair.

No jury of football supporters was required. There was a casual-work agreement, a calendar, an unrepresented claimant and a barrister who knew how to use all three. On 2 November 2026, 4-5 announced McCrossan’s success in Vannet v Elior Group UK. The report had the brisk satisfaction of an away win. The judgment tells a longer, sadder story. And, for once, the most damning detail about the legal business is not what the successful lawyer said. It is what the promotional write-up found no room to mention.

Six Years For The Catering Contract

On 21 July 2025, Elior UK announced a six-year contract to provide hospitality and catering at Dundee United Football Club. The club called it its largest-ever commercial agreement. The company promised new menus, better technology, upgraded facilities and fresh Scottish produce. All of it would transform matchday hospitality at Tannadice Park. The language had all the usual corporate seasoning: exciting partnership, innovation, investment and quality, served on a very clean plate.

It was a handsome deal. Elior would handle the hospitality lounges and enhance the experience for supporters. The football club got a long-term commercial partner. Meanwhile, the catering giant gained another stadium in its growing portfolio. The publicity did not suggest that Elior would spend six years wondering whether to turn up and provide the service.

Across those same hospitality lounges, Mrs Vannet had already been doing a job for years. She had initially worked for Dundee United and subsequently for Elior after the catering operation transferred. Her roughly six years in the role were not six years employed by Elior. That distinction matters, although it hardly spoils the contrast. The business obtained a six-year commitment; the woman who helped run the bar had a contract built around individual fixtures.

Bar Manager In The Stadium, Casual Worker On Paper

Mrs Vannet supervised staff, attended management briefings and oversaw a hospitality lounge. She ordinarily worked home fixtures and rarely declined the assignments offered to her. Both parties regarded her as the bar manager for that area. Outside a legal conference room, somebody doing that work for six years might reasonably describe it as her job.

The written agreement, however, called her a casual worker. Elior did not have to offer an assignment, and she did not have to accept one. Each engagement stood alone, with no continuing promise of work between fixtures. She could decline shifts without penalty and work elsewhere. The tribunal recorded that she also worked at the Black Watch Club. Those were not just phrases inserted into a contract and forgotten. The judge examined how the arrangement operated and accepted that the freedom existed in practice.

That is the fascinating, uncomfortable divide. A stadium needs somebody to manage the bar when thousands arrive. Yet the law can treat the working relationship between matches as a series of disconnected islands. The employee-status question did not ask whether the tasks looked managerial or the work had gone on for years. It asked whether the legal obligations across those assignments added up to a contract of employment. In Dundee, the answer was no.

The Final Whistle Comes By WhatsApp

On 20 October 2025, Mrs Vannet spoke with Elior general manager Ms Taylor during a WhatsApp telephone call. She was told that the working relationship was ending and that no further work would be offered. This was a call, not a WhatsApp text message. The distinction is small but important, because it was the communication of the decision that later fixed the legal clock.

For a woman who had supervised matchday hospitality for years, the manner of the exit was strikingly spare. No ceremonious meeting, no grand final whistle, no folder bearing the club crest. A phone call carried the news. Mrs Vannet understood that Elior had made its decision, but she regarded the method as insufficiently formal or professional. The tribunal accepted that this was genuinely her view.

Then came the paperwork. On 24 November, she emailed to request written confirmation and referred to the October decision. She appealed on 3 December, while the company supplied its written confirmation on 8 December. Nearly seven weeks separated the call from the letter. In business, apparently, the decision could sprint down the tunnel while the stationery remained in injury time.

The Calendar Is The Fourth Official

The central timing dispute could fit on the back of a match ticket. Mrs Vannet said 8 December mattered because that was when the company confirmed the decision in writing. Elior argued that the relevant date was 20 October, when she heard the decision on the WhatsApp call. Simon McCrossan put that position to the tribunal, and Employment Judge Fellows agreed.

The judge found that Mrs Vannet knew on 20 October that the relationship had ended. Her later emails themselves referred to the decision as already made. Therefore, written confirmation did not restart the clock. The ordinary three-month limit expired on 19 January 2026. Early conciliation did not begin until 4 March, and she presented her tribunal claim on 6 March.

There was no mystery about the arithmetic by the time the judgment arrived. The difficult question was whether the statutory exception could help her. She needed to show that presenting the claim on time had not been reasonably practicable. She also had to act within a reasonable further period. And the personal circumstances behind that question were far more serious than an overlooked diary notification.

A Bereavement, Not A Footnote

During the relevant period, Mrs Vannet’s husband was seriously ill. He died in December 2025. The tribunal accepted that she had suffered significant emotional distress as a result. Those facts appear in the written reasons, but not in the chambers’ polished account of its client’s win. A legal victory can be accurately reported and still leave an important piece of the human story outside the frame.

The judge did not disregard her circumstances. Instead, the decision examined what she had managed to do while dealing with them. Mrs Vannet corresponded with Elior, challenged the ending of her work, pursued an appeal and sought information about her rights. By 24 November, she was expressly saying she believed she had employment rights and was taking advice. In the tribunal’s assessment, those steps showed that bringing a claim before 19 January had remained reasonably feasible.

That was the legal finding. It was not a ruling that grief is easy or that her loss was trivial. The legal stopwatch simply worked differently. Nevertheless, the practical result was brutal. Actions taken to challenge her treatment became evidence that she could also have completed the formal tribunal process in time. The clock kept going while life was coming apart.

Supporting Colleagues Through Life’s Ups And Downs

Elior’s careers website has a section called Support Me. It promises help through life’s ups and downs. The page lists mental-health first aiders, a confidential assistance programme and wellbeing resources. The same page describes a warm welcome, career development, regular manager conversations and recognition for long service. As a description of corporate values, it is attractive enough to put beside the fresh Scottish produce at Tannadice.

We do not know whether Mrs Vannet was eligible for those particular benefits or what personal support Elior offered her. Neither the judgment nor the promotional material establishes that. So this is not an allegation that the company denied a promised service. The comparison is between corporate care language and a narrow legal outcome. In the underlying case, a bereaved woman’s work had ended by telephone.

The contrast deserves scrutiny without needing to manufacture misconduct. One arm of the brand explains how colleagues matter through life’s difficult moments. In the tribunal, Elior succeeded because the claimant lacked employee status and missed the filing deadline. Judge Fellows found the deadline achievable despite her loss. The recruitment brochure offers a warm hug. By contrast, the litigation file has a clock, a contract and a rather colder handshake.

An Employer Victory Without An Employer Witness

Here is a procedural detail worth printing on the back of the chambers victory announcement. Elior called no witness evidence at the preliminary hearing. The respondent relied on documents, McCrossan’s submissions and his cross-examination of Mrs Vannet. The claimant represented herself and gave evidence. Although offered the opportunity, she did not make closing submissions.

None of that makes the result invalid. Documents can decide a preliminary issue. A party need not call witnesses merely to provide courtroom furniture. McCrossan could test whether she could refuse shifts or work elsewhere. He could also test what she understood about the October call. Indeed, chambers singled out his cross-examination as crucial to the outcome.

Still, consider the picture. One side arrived with a professional employment barrister instructed by Aston Legal Limited. Opposite him stood a woman who had managed the matchday bar and appeared on her own. Elior succeeded without a manager entering the witness box to explain why her work ended. Because the hearing dealt with status and timing, it never required that explanation. At the final whistle, the scoreboard registered a win without playing the game most people associate with an unfair-dismissal claim.

Employee, Worker, Or Apparently Just There

Employment Judge Fellows did not say Mrs Vannet had never worked. Nor did it hold that six years of service were imaginary. It accepted her managerial role and routine attendance at home matches. Ordinary unfair dismissal requires employee status under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judge found no continuing mutual obligation across assignments. The casual agreement matched what the parties had actually done.

This distinction gets lost whenever people treat worker and employee as interchangeable labels. They are not. A person may be a worker with certain statutory rights, yet lack the employee status needed for an ordinary unfair-dismissal claim. The Dundee ruling concerned that second, narrower question. It did not decide that Mrs Vannet had no employment-related rights of any kind.

For readers who have followed TCAP’s earlier examination of casual pay and missing hours at La Trobe University, the broader theme will feel familiar, although the Australian legal framework is different. Institutions can record labour in extraordinary detail when they need a shift covered, a room managed or an invoice paid. The legal classification of the person doing it can become a different exercise altogether. In Dundee, management duties were real; the overarching employee contract was not established.

The Same Barrister, The Other Side Of The Status Line

Now for the detail that makes Simon McCrossan particularly interesting. On 9 September 2026, 4-5 celebrated another employment result. In that case, he helped a dentist establish statutory worker status despite a contractual arrangement describing her as self-employed. The tribunal looked beyond the label, examining personal service, control, integration and the practical relationship. That result allowed the dentist’s Equality Act and worker claims to proceed towards a decision on their merits.

Then, less than two months later, chambers celebrated McCrossan’s defence of Elior against a woman seeking employee status for unfair-dismissal purposes. On one occasion, the law recognised a statutory working relationship despite self-employed wording. In the other, a casual arrangement did not create the employment contract needed for an ordinary dismissal claim. The legal questions differed, as did the facts. There is no contradiction in a barrister arguing both cases successfully.

But the contrast is worth more than a passing grin. McCrossan understands employment law’s boundaries. He knows which doors open and which stay locked. The profession calls that expertise. Fair enough. Can ordinary people recognise that legal difference before their time limit expires? A casual contract says one thing, while six years of actual work can feel like something else.

The Victory Lap That Leaves Out The Bereavement

On 2 November 2026, 4-5 published its account of the Vannet result. It praised the successful defence, explained the lack of mutuality of obligation and highlighted the cross-examination. The article was not false about the legal outcome. It offered the familiar chambers match report: counsel did well, the client succeeded, please instruct us again.

The contrast with the written judgment is revealing. The promotional version gives readers the contract and limitation arguments. It calls 24 August the judgment date, although that was the hearing date; the written reasons were sent on 10 September. It does not mention that the claimant was unrepresented or that her husband died during the statutory period. Nor does it mention that the respondent led no witness evidence. Those facts do not undo the legal ruling. They do, however, change the temperature of the story once a human being is allowed back into it.

TCAP has previously looked at how legal thresholds can dominate a case, including Alexander Bunzl’s discussion of controlling vexatious litigation. This case involves very different proceedings and no finding of vexatious conduct. The shared theme is narrower: a procedural gateway can determine what the court ever gets to consider. Sometimes the most important thing about a judgment is the question it never reaches.

The Club Gets A Six-Year Deal, The Bar Manager Gets Assignments

The symmetry is a little too neat for comfort. Dundee United signed a six-year hospitality agreement with Elior in July 2025, celebrating what it described as a record commercial deal. Mrs Vannet had spent about six years managing matchday hospitality. She worked first for the club and then briefly under its new caterer. Her own agreement, however, promised no work between individual fixtures.

That difference is lawful on the facts the tribunal found. Businesses can contract for long periods while engaging casual staff for intermittent work. Yet it contrasts the security offered to organisations with the uncertainty faced by somebody who turns up whenever the home team plays. Stadium hospitality runs on people, but the durable contract belongs to the company providing the service.

A football club can announce a six-year partnership with champagne language and confident plans for the future. A bar manager can spend six years managing staff and still face a legal question over whether she was an employee at all. One relationship gets the full corporate unveiling. The other ends on a WhatsApp call. That is not a comparison the catering press release invited anybody to make.

The Final Whistle Was Never About Fairness

McCrossan did his job effectively. Employment Judge Fellows accepted the respondent’s arguments on employee status and time limits. Elior therefore had two independent grounds for dismissal of the claim. The judge also considered Mrs Vannet’s bereavement and found the statutory exception unavailable. The decision stands as the outcome; this article cannot determine how any other tribunal would have assessed those facts.

What the judgment did not establish is whether Elior treated Mrs Vannet fairly in ending the relationship. The preliminary hearing never decided that issue. This is the crucial distinction between winning a case and proving every aspect of an employer’s conduct was justified. An unfair-dismissal claim can disappear before fairness receives a minute of playing time. The employer leaves with the result, while the merits remain in the changing room.

The Match Report And The Match Nobody Played

Simon McCrossan takes his place in Chambers Chatter without an invented personal scandal. His chambers supplied the material: a victory announcement omitting the bereavement and a second case where he argued successfully for worker protection. Meanwhile, the woman’s six years at the bar were not enough to establish employee status. Elior retained its long catering deal; Mrs Vannet received a shorter message from the law: not an employee, out of time, claim dismissed.

Dundee United had its commercial partner. Elior had its defence barrister. Employment law supplied the rules, and the fourth official had the clock. Outside the legal scoreboard was a woman who had supervised those hospitality shifts for years. She also lost her husband during the period for bringing a claim. The lawyers won without the tribunal deciding whether ending her work was fair. In the sleek language of chambers publicity, that’s another successful result. In the language of anybody who has ever worked a shift, it is one hell of a fucking final whistle.

Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project

Chambers Chatter : Simon McCrossan – Six Years At The Bar, Out Of Time And Out Of Work