The Claimant is a dentist. The Claimant contended that he was a worker and so entitled to holiday pay. The parties accepted the Claimant had entered into a contract with the Respondent whereby he undertook to do or perform personally work or services for the Respondent. The ET concluded that the Claimant was self-employed and so was not a worker. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET erred in law by failing properly to analyse whether the Claimant fell outside the definition of a worker because he (1) carried on a profession or business undertaking in respect of which (2) the Respondent was by virtue of the contract a client or customer.