Mr I Jones v Whitecross Dental Care Limited Heard: by video — 2021

The tribunal first determined that Whitecross Dental Care Ltd, not Integrated Dental Holdings Ltd, was the correct respondent. It found that Whitecross was the operating company for the dental practice, whereas Integrated was a holding company, and the claims against Integrated were dismissed.

The claimant was a dental surgeon who had worked under a 1 April 2015 "Self Employed Associate Agreement". Although the written agreement described the relationship as self-employed, the tribunal examined the practical reality of the arrangements. It found that the claimant worked broadly full-time, had some flexibility over leave and patient refusal, used the respondent's premises, equipment, staff and patients, maintained indemnity insurance, and was treated as self-employed for tax purposes.

The decisive issue was personal service. The agreement required the claimant, if absent for any reason, to arrange a locum, and the locum had to be a GDC-registered dental practitioner approved by the respondent. The tribunal held that the approval provision did not amount to an absolute and unqualified discretion to refuse consent. In November 2020 the claimant in fact appointed a locum, the respondent accepted that arrangement, and the claimant received more from the respondent than he paid the locum. On that basis the tribunal held that the claimant did not have an obligation to perform personally, so he was not an employee under the ERA 1996 or the EqA 2010 and was not a worker under the ERA 1996.

Because the employment-status point failed, the tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims without reaching their substantive merits, including unfair dismissal, age discrimination, detriment for protected disclosures, detriment for refusing to attend work in dangerous circumstances, accrued annual leave, and unlawful deductions from wages.