Mr F Egan v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police — 2023

The preliminary hearing determined whether the claimant had employee or worker status. The claimant provided therapy sessions to the respondent's staff, invoiced the respondent for that work, paid his own tax and national insurance, arranged his own professional accreditation, and was free to provide therapy services elsewhere. The tribunal found that he had a contract to provide services personally, but the central issue was whether he was doing so in the course of running a profession or business undertaking.

The tribunal considered matters including access to premises, parking and canteen facilities, administrative arrangements, use of rooms, lack of charge for premises, financial outlay, supervision, payment arrangements, fluctuation in sessions, and the parties' understanding of the relationship. It found that many of those matters did not assist the claimant, that invoicing and tax arrangements were indicative of self-employment, and that both parties had believed and intended at the time that the claimant was self-employed.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proving that he was an employee or worker. It found that the evidence was strongly suggestive that he was self-employed, meaning he was not entitled to pursue his unfair dismissal, notice pay, or holiday pay claims in the Employment Tribunal. All claims were dismissed.