Beauty therapist found to be employee despite consultancy agreement
A beauty therapist who worked set hours, wore a uniform and used the respondent's equipment has been found to be an employee, allowing her claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions to proceed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #beauty-therapist
- #consultancy-agreement
- #sham-contract
- #control
- #substitution-clause
- #personal-service
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged as a beauty therapist under a consultancy agreement.
- The respondent admitted that substitution was never intended or practicable.
- The claimant worked set hours, wore a uniform, and used respondent's equipment and branding.
- The respondent controlled pricing, fee splits, holiday, and client allocation.
- The claimant raised homemade invoices and handled her own tax and NI.
- The tribunal found the consultancy agreement did not reflect the true relationship.
Timeline
-
Consultancy Agreement signed
The claimant and respondent signed a consultancy agreement dated 5 March 2015.
-
ET1 presented
The claimant presented her claim to the tribunal on 18 December 2020.
-
ET3 filed
The respondent filed a response arguing the claimant was self-employed.
-
First preliminary hearing postponed
The preliminary hearing scheduled for 21 September 2021 was postponed and relisted.
-
Preliminary hearing on status
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on the claimant's employment status.
-
Reserved judgment on status
Employment Judge Palmer issued a reserved judgment finding the claimant was an employee.
-
Costs hearing
Employment Judge Hutchings ordered the respondent to pay £640 in costs.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee, a worker, or self-employed, to determine if it had jurisdiction to hear her claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction of wages.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the claimant was an employee, not self-employed, meaning her claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deductions (including holiday and sick pay) can proceed.
Key reasons:
- The consultancy agreement's substitution clause was never intended to be used and was not practicable.
- The respondent controlled the claimant's hours, pricing, uniform, and client allocation.
- The claimant provided personal service and was integrated into the business.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the case was about jurisdiction only.
Lessons & takeaways
- A written agreement stating self-employment does not guarantee that status if the reality of the working relationship is different.
- If an employer controls your hours, pricing, and how you work, you may be an employee even if you invoice for your services.
- Substitution clauses that are never intended to be used are a strong indicator of employment.
- Tribunals look at the true working relationship, not just the label in a contract.
This case shows how employment tribunals look behind written agreements to determine the true nature of a working relationship. The beauty therapist worked for Rebecca Squires under a consultancy agreement that described her as self-employed. But in practice, she worked set hours, wore a uniform, used the respondent's equipment and branding, and had no real right to send a substitute.
What the tribunal found
The respondent controlled pricing, fee splits, holiday, and client allocation. The claimant raised invoices and handled her own tax, but the tribunal found that the consultancy agreement did not reflect the reality. The substitution clause was never intended to be used – the respondent admitted that when the claimant was ill, clients were simply reallocated to other therapists.
What could have been done differently
If the respondent had genuinely wanted an independent contractor relationship, she would have needed to allow the claimant to run her own business – for example, by setting her own hours, prices, and using her own equipment. The control exercised over the claimant's day-to-day work made her an employee in all but name.
Why this matters
For anyone working under a 'consultancy' or 'self-employed' arrangement, this case is a reminder that the label on the contract is not decisive. If you work under significant control, provide personal service, and are integrated into the business, you may have employment rights – including protection from unfair dismissal and the right to holiday and sick pay.
Similar cases
Working through a limited company? You may still be an employee
A tribunal ruled that a commissioning director with 24 years' service remained an employee even after switching to a consultancy agreement via his own limited company.
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.
Primary school teacher found to be employee despite invoicing via limited company
A tribunal ruled that a teacher who invoiced via her limited company was an employee from September 2019, enabling her to pursue claims for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
Group CTO denied unfair dismissal claim after consultancy period excluded from service
A group chief technology officer who worked for a company via his own limited company before becoming an employee was unable to claim unfair dismissal because his continuous service fell short of two years.