Case 8002653/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002653/2025 Held in Edinburgh on and March 2026 Employment Judge M A Macleod Ms Jade Harris v Vets Now Emergency Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002653/2025
- Decision date
- 8 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002653/2025 Held in Edinburgh on and March 2026 Employment Judge M A Macleod Ms Jade Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Jade Harris's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that she was a self-employed contractor of Vets Now Emergency Limited and was neither an employee nor a worker within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It therefore did not determine whether she had the two years' continuous service required by section 108(1).
The Tribunal considered the written Contract for Services and the working arrangements in practice. It found that there was no mutuality of obligation: Ms Harris could accept, refuse or cancel shifts without penalty, negotiate the rate for particular shifts, and work for other organisations. She was paid only for shifts worked, received no sick pay, was not subject to the respondent's performance-management or line-management processes, and retained professional freedom in performing her duties subject to applicable standards. The respondent exercised very little control over her working weeks.
The Tribunal also considered factors inconsistent with self-employment, including payment through PAYE, rolled-up holiday pay, some regularity and personal service, and a contractual substitution provision which did not reflect the arrangements in practice. Considering the relationship as a whole, it found that those factors did not outweigh the lack of mutuality of obligation and Ms Harris's freedom to arrange her work. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claimant was held to be a self-employed contractor, rather than an employee or worker. The section 108(1) continuous-service issue was therefore not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 230 ERA 1996 employee and worker status
- Ready Mixed Concrete three-condition test for a contract of service
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher true agreement approach
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith substitution principles
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.