Case 4103916/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L MacDougall v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 4103916/2025
- Decision date
- 15 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L MacDougall
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing concerning employment status, the Tribunal found that Mr L MacDougall, Mr G Gunn and Mr S Brechin were engaged by The Highland Council under a succession of contracts corresponding to individual academic years, with breaks during the summer holidays. There was no overarching contract or guarantee of engagement for a subsequent academic year, and the claimants were paid only for teaching and associated work performed.
The Tribunal found that the respondent did not exercise sufficient control for employee status. Teaching days were arranged around the claimants' other professional commitments, they had complete freedom over their teaching methods, they could teach remotely, and they could prioritise other work during an engagement. The cover arrangements were not treated as true substitution arrangements, but the teaching did not invariably have to be undertaken by the individual claimant. The Tribunal also found that the claimants had a low degree of organisational integration and provided services as persons in business on their own account. Their engagements were contracts for services rather than contracts of employment.
Because the claimants were not employees, their unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed. For worker status, however, the Tribunal found that when the claimants chose to teach lessons they were personally required to perform that work. The respondent conceded that it was not their client or customer. The claimants were therefore workers within s.230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 during the times when they taught lessons.
That worker-status finding allowed the holiday pay claims, pursued as unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 or alternatively under the Working Time Regulations 1998, and the claims concerning statements of employment particulars under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 to proceed. The judgment did not determine liability on those surviving claims and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimants were not employees of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because wrongful dismissal proceedings in the Employment Tribunal required employee status, which the claimants did not establish. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal determined only that the claimants were workers while teaching lessons, allowing their holiday pay claims under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 or, alternatively, the Working Time Regulations 1998 to proceed. Liability and remedy were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claims concerning an alleged failure to provide statements of employment particulars under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 were permitted to proceed. Liability and remedy were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 employee-status definition
- Ready Mixed Concrete three conditions for a contract of service
- Cotswold Developments personal-service and control questions
- White v Troutbeck cumulative effect of the agreement and relationship
- Stevenson Jordan and Harrison integration test
- Lee v Chung economic-reality test
- Young & Woods contractual label not determinative
- s.230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 limb (b) worker definition
- Uber BV v Aslam purposive statutory interpretation of worker status
- Pimlico Plumbers personal-performance and substitution principles
- Bates van Winkelhof distinction between categories of self-employed people
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher contractual-reality principle
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.