Director and shareholder claimed worker status: tribunal says he was a company, not an individual
A director and shareholder of a limited company claimed he was a worker for a client of his company. The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding no personal contract existed.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #employment-status
- #personal-service
- #mutuality-of-obligation
- #control
- #independent-contractor
- #limited-company
Key facts
- The claimant was a director and shareholder of Pinnacle Support Services Group Ltd.
- The respondent sub-contracted the service of accommodating young people to Pinnacle, not to the claimant personally.
- The claimant used his Pinnacle email address and described himself as Operations Director of Pinnacle in correspondence.
- The claimant arranged for other staff to work at Belmont Road and paid them.
- The respondent paid fees into an account it believed was Pinnacle's business account.
- The claimant had no contractual relationship with the respondent.
Timeline
-
Pinnacle entered into agreement with Leesland Ltd
Pinnacle agreed to manage a property at 148 Belmont Road, Liverpool, with obligations to let bedrooms and make monthly payments.
-
Claimant appointed director of Pinnacle
The claimant became a director and one-third shareholder of Pinnacle Support Services Group Ltd.
-
Claimant contacted respondent about his project
The claimant texted Miss Leahair seeking advice on his own project, later sending a 'Pinnacle Social Worker Package'.
-
Claimant worked one bank shift
The claimant attended a Police station as an appropriate adult for a young person, his only assignment as a bank worker.
-
Claimant offered accommodation solution
The claimant proposed accommodating YP1 at Belmont Road, offering the respondent a commission of £200 per week per young person.
-
Discussions about finances and dividends
The claimant and Mr Ralph exchanged messages about the service's finances and potential dividends for Pinnacle.
-
Claimant formed new company
The claimant formed Pro-Active Living Solutions Ltd and offered Miss Leahair shares, which she declined.
-
Claimant requested meeting
The claimant texted Miss Leahair to ask for a meeting, which occurred on 9 February 2022.
-
Claimant announced departure
Mr Ralph informed Miss Leahair that the claimant would leave at 8am the next day; the claimant agreed to stay a few more days.
-
Acas early conciliation commenced
The claimant commenced Acas early conciliation against the respondent, surprising Miss Leahair who thought his dispute was with Pinnacle.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee or worker of Horizons Plus Ltd, or whether he was acting through his limited company, making the respondent a client of that company.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract because he was neither an employee nor a worker.
The key reason was that the claimant operated through his limited company, Pinnacle Support Services Group Ltd. He used a company email, described himself as Operations Director, arranged for other staff to work, and payments were made to the company's account. There was no personal contract with Horizons Plus Ltd.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work through your own limited company, you are unlikely to be an employee or worker of the client — the client contracts with your company, not you personally.
- Using a company email, title, and arranging for others to do the work are strong indicators that you are not providing personal service.
- To claim worker status, you must show a personal obligation to perform work yourself, not just through your company.
- Tribunals look at the reality of the relationship, not just what the parties call it — but clear company-to-company arrangements are hard to overturn.
When a company director tried to claim worker status
This case shows the difficulty of arguing that you are an individual worker when you have been operating through a limited company. The claimant was a director and shareholder of Pinnacle Support Services Group Ltd, which had a contract with Horizons Plus Ltd to accommodate young people. He personally worked only one bank shift for Horizons Plus, and all other work was done by Pinnacle staff.
The tribunal noted that the claimant used a Pinnacle email address, described himself as Operations Director, and arranged for other staff to work at the property. Payments were made into an account that Horizons Plus believed was Pinnacle's business account. There was no evidence of a personal contract between the claimant and Horizons Plus.
What the losing side could have done differently
For the claimant to succeed, he would have needed to show that he personally agreed to perform work for Horizons Plus, not just through his company. The fact that he only worked one shift personally, and otherwise acted as a director, made it clear that the relationship was company-to-company. If he had wanted to be treated as a worker, he should have contracted in his own name and performed the work personally without involving his company.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment status is determined by the reality of the working relationship. If you incorporate a company and use it to contract with clients, you cannot easily claim to be an employee or worker of those clients. The tribunal will look at factors like personal service, control, and mutuality of obligation. Here, the lack of personal service was fatal to the claim.
For anyone considering a similar claim, it is essential to examine whether you have a personal contract or whether you are simply a director of a company that provides services. The distinction can make all the difference to your employment rights.
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.
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.
Independent fostering panel chair denied unfair dismissal rights: office holder, not employee
A tribunal has ruled that an Independent Chair of a fostering panel with 13 years' service was not an employee, meaning she cannot bring unfair dismissal or breach of contract claims.
Commission-only literary agent held not to be an employee for unfair dismissal claim
A literary agent paid solely by commission lost his unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal ruled he was not an employee. The case shows the importance of control, mutuality of obligation, and personal service in determining employment status.