The Claimant is a dentist who entered into a written agreement with a company which he used to own. In November 2018 the Claimant began a tribunal claim, claiming that he had been an employee of the company, alternatively a worker. He complained of unfair dismissal by reason of having made protected disclosures, alternatively that the termination of his contract amounted to detrimental treatment on the ground of having made protected disclosures. There was also a claim for holiday pay. At a preliminary hearing the ET decided that the Claimant was not an employee as defined in section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. At a further preliminary hearing the ET decided that the Claimant was not a worker. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. It was an error for the ET to conclude that it would be inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in the prior decision on employment status for the ET now to hold that the Claimant had worker status. In particular the previous findings that the essential elements of the test of employment status in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 were not met, including as to “control” and as to the intention of the parties (as genuinely stated in the written contract) having been that the Claimant was not an employee, should not have been regarded as automatically precluding the conclusion that the claimant was nevertheless a worker. It was also an error to conclude that the requirement (as set out in section 203(3)(b)) for an obligation of personal service was not satisfied in this case. On examination the ET was not bound by its previous decision on employment status so to hold. On a correct construction of the clause of the written agreement between the parties concerned with the issue of substitution, and in all the circumstances, the only correct conclusion on the facts found was that this requirement was satisfied.