The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Martin Groom (Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom [2026] EWCA Civ 6 (14 January 2026)). The appeal concerned the contractual status of “volunteer” coastguards in circumstances where the documentation referred to a right to remuneration for periods of work undertaken in the role.
The Employment Tribunal found that there was no contract. This meant that Mr Groom could not qualify for ‘limb (b) worker’ status because this depended upon a contract. Mr Groom was successful in the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the basis that the written documents, properly construed, gave rise to enforceable contractual obligations and a wage-work bargain.
The Court of Appeal rejected the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s appeal. The right to remuneration, crystallised in the documentation, was properly regarded as contractually binding. There was an intention to create legal relations, and sufficient consideration for a binding wage-work bargain. The Court of Appeal also confirmed that the absence of ‘mutuality of obligation’ outside of a specific engagement was not inconsistent with a binding contract during an agreed period of work. The judgment therefore further marginalises mutuality of obligation as a barrier to worker status.
Stuart Brittenden KC and Professor Alan Bogg acted for Mr Groom and were instructed by Pattinson and Brewer. Mr Groom was supported by the GMB: HM Coastguard keep worker status after court ruling | GMB Union.
