James Main v SpaDental Limited — 2019

James Main, a dentist, brought a claim presented on 27 March 2019 alleging that he was an employee or, alternatively, a worker and was entitled to holiday pay. The respondent denied that he was an employee or worker and said he was self-employed. At the hearing, the claimant did not pursue employee status, and the tribunal determined only the worker issue under the Working Time Regulations 1998.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had provided dental services under contractual arrangements with the respondent and its predecessor, including a second service agreement from 31 August 2017. It found that the claimant kept self-employed tax returns, paid national insurance as a self-employed person, and had described himself as self-employed in his IVA and bankruptcy materials. It also found that he had substantial autonomy: he set fees, chose which patients to treat, could alter appointments, determined when he worked, had responsibility for support staff and for correcting his own work, maintained his own indemnity insurance, and made his own arrangements for cover and training.

The tribunal accepted that some contractual terms pointed the other way, including a holiday provision that referred to leave entitlement and a 25-day cap before an absent dentist charge applied. However, weighing all the factors, it concluded that the respondent did not exercise tight control over the claimant and that, in substance, he was a self-employed dentist receiving support services from a customer rather than working under a worker contract. The claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.