Dog walker with set hours found to be employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination win
A dog walker who worked set hours for five years was found to be an employee, not a self-employed contractor, and awarded over £11,700 for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent from August 2015 until dismissal on 18 August 2020.
- The claimant worked set hours 7:00 am to 10:30 am five days a week.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was a worker but disputed employee status.
- The tribunal found the claimant was an employee for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The claimant succeeded in claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
- The respondent was ordered to pay a total of £11,706.54.
Timeline
-
Initial self-employed work
The claimant began dog walking for the respondent as a self-employed independent contractor.
-
Start of employment
The claimant agreed to work set hours (7:00 am to 10:30 am) three days a week, sharing shifts with Sarah Fraser.
-
Full-time core hours
After Sarah Fraser left, the claimant worked the core hours five days a week.
-
Lockdown full-time hours
During lockdown, the claimant worked full-time hours with some variation as required by the respondent.
-
Reverted to core hours
The respondent required the claimant to revert to her former hours of 7:00 am to 10:30 am.
-
Dismissal
Mrs Bennett terminated the claimant's employment.
-
Preliminary hearing (status)
The tribunal heard evidence on whether the claimant was an employee. The respondent conceded worker status but disputed employee status.
-
Judgment on status
Employment Judge Pritchard found the claimant was an employee from August 2015 to 18 August 2020.
-
Final hearing
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of her age. Total award of £11,706.54.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee (with full unfair dismissal rights) or a self-employed contractor, and whether her dismissal was both unfair and based on her age.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, finding she was an employee from August 2015 until her dismissal on 18 August 2020. Her claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination succeeded.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £1,664.95
- Compensatory award: £3,496.94
- Wrongful dismissal: £918.75
- Holiday pay: £11,352.32
- Failure to provide written particulars: £367.50
- Total: £11,706.54
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work regular set hours and are under the control of your employer, you may be an employee even if you were initially engaged as a self-employed contractor.
- A substitution clause that is never used in practice is unlikely to prevent employee status.
- Employers should ensure they provide written statements of employment particulars to all employees within two months of starting work.
- Age discrimination claims can succeed alongside unfair dismissal if the dismissal is linked to age-related assumptions or treatment.
- Keep records of your working pattern and any communications about your role to help prove employee status.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of employment status, especially in the gig economy. The dog walker had worked for Look Who’s Walking Limited for five years, with set hours from 7:00 am to 10:30 am five days a week. Despite being initially engaged as a self-employed contractor, the tribunal found that in reality she was an employee because she had no right to substitute, was under the company's control, and there was mutuality of obligation. This meant she was entitled to claim unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided this outcome by properly classifying the claimant from the start. If they had provided a written contract reflecting the true nature of the relationship, and given her a written statement of employment particulars, they might have avoided the additional award for that failure. More importantly, they should have ensured any dismissal was fair and not discriminatory. The tribunal found that the dismissal was both unfair and based on age, which could have been prevented with proper procedures and awareness of equality law.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that tribunals will look at the reality of the working relationship, not just the label given by the employer. For workers in the gig economy or those engaged as self-employed, this case provides a clear example of how set hours, control, and lack of substitution can establish employee status. It also shows that age discrimination claims can succeed alongside unfair dismissal, and that compensation can include significant sums for holiday pay and failure to provide written particulars.
Similar cases
Sole director and shareholder fails to prove employee status for National Insurance Fund claim
A design co-ordinator who was the sole director and shareholder of her own company could not claim redundancy or other payments from the National Insurance Fund because she was not an employee. The tribunal dismissed her claims.
Minister of Word and Sacrament: not an employee for unfair dismissal, but an employee for age discrimination
A minister with 19 years' service was found not to be an employee for unfair dismissal purposes, but was an employee under the Equality Act, allowing her age discrimination claim to proceed.
Self-employed music teacher at Cranleigh School fails to prove worker status
A visiting music teacher who signed a self-employed agreement was found not to be an employee or worker, and his claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and holiday pay were dismissed.
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.