Diet clinic doctor found to be a worker, not an employee: whistleblowing claim allowed to proceed with deposit
A medical doctor at a diet clinic was found to be a worker rather than an employee, meaning her unfair dismissal claim failed. However, her whistleblowing claim was allowed to proceed, subject to a £50 deposit order.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a diet doctor at the respondent's clinic from August/September 2015.
- There was no written contract; the claimant was paid gross and invoiced as a self-employed individual.
- The claimant made protected disclosures to the CQC and GMC in November 2019 regarding medication prescribing.
- The respondent reduced the claimant's hours in February 2020 and terminated her contract in March 2020.
- The tribunal found the claimant was a worker, not an employee, so unfair dismissal claims were dismissed.
- The whistleblowing claim was allowed to proceed subject to a £50 deposit order.
Timeline
-
Started work at clinic
Claimant began working as a diet doctor at The Fine Clinic Ltd, initially 2 mornings per week.
-
Merco arrangement
Merco Health Ltd agreed to act as claimant's designated body, invoicing respondent £65/hour and paying claimant £60/hour.
-
First CQC complaint
Claimant complained to CQC about hygiene and lack of registration; no detriment alleged.
-
Direct invoicing started
Claimant began invoicing respondent directly at £70/hour, declaring herself self-employed.
-
Second CQC disclosure
Claimant reported to CQC that Dr P continued prescribing despite CQC instruction to stop.
-
GMC disclosure
Claimant emailed Professor Baker at GMC about the prescribing incident.
-
Clinic purchased by Dr V
Harmony purchased shares in The Fine Clinic Ltd; Dr V became director.
-
Self-employed contract sent
Claimant received a draft contract for self-employed services, which she refused to sign.
-
Hours reduced
Dr V announced reduction of claimant's hours due to clinic closure on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
-
Sick leave and termination
Claimant sent sick certificate and invoice for sick pay; respondent gave two weeks' notice of termination due to pandemic.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee or a worker, and whether her whistleblowing claim had reasonable prospects of success or should be struck out.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was a worker, not an employee, because there was no written contract, she invoiced the respondent as self-employed, and there was no mutuality of obligation. As a result, her claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, and notice pay were dismissed. However, the tribunal found that her whistleblowing claim had some factual disputes that should be heard by a full tribunal, so it was allowed to proceed, but subject to a £50 deposit order because it had little reasonable prospects of success. No compensation was awarded at this stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work without a written contract and invoice as self-employed, a tribunal is likely to find you are a worker, not an employee, which limits the claims you can bring.
- Whistleblowing claims can survive even if you are a worker, but they must have reasonable prospects of success to avoid being struck out or made subject to a deposit order.
- Making protected disclosures to regulators like the CQC or GMC can support a whistleblowing claim, but the timing and connection to any detriment must be clear.
- A deposit order requires you to pay a sum as a condition of continuing a claim that has little reasonable prospects of success, so consider the strength of your case before proceeding.
A doctor's status dispute
This case shows how employment status can be a critical preliminary issue in tribunal claims. The claimant, a medical doctor working at a diet clinic, had no written contract and was paid gross, invoicing the clinic as a self-employed individual. When her hours were reduced and she was later terminated, she brought claims including unfair dismissal and whistleblowing. The tribunal first had to decide whether she was an employee or a worker.
Why the unfair dismissal claim failed
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee. Key factors included the lack of mutuality of obligation – the clinic was not obliged to offer work, and the doctor was not obliged to accept it. She also declared herself self-employed for tax purposes and invoiced the clinic directly. This meant her unfair dismissal claim, which requires employee status, had to be dismissed. However, the tribunal accepted she was a worker, which allowed her to pursue claims for whistleblowing, sick pay, and holiday pay.
Whistleblowing claim allowed – but with a deposit
The claimant had made protected disclosures to the CQC and GMC about prescribing practices. The tribunal found there was factual evidence in dispute about whether these disclosures led to the reduction in her hours and termination. Therefore, the whistleblowing claim was not struck out. However, the tribunal considered it had little reasonable prospects of success and imposed a £50 deposit order as a condition of continuing. This means the claimant must pay £50 to proceed, and could face costs if she loses.
What this means for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of understanding your employment status before bringing a claim. Workers have fewer rights than employees – for example, they cannot claim unfair dismissal. However, they are protected against whistleblowing detriment. If you are considering a tribunal claim, check whether you are an employee, worker, or self-employed, as this will determine which claims you can bring. A deposit order is a warning that your claim is weak, but it does not mean you cannot proceed – it just requires a financial commitment.
Similar cases
Wasted costs application against NHS Trust solicitors dismissed after settlement agreement
A junior doctor's attempt to obtain a wasted costs order against the solicitors for an NHS Trust was dismissed because a 2018 settlement agreement precluded the application and there was no improper conduct.
Assistant to business owner found to be a worker, not an employee
A tribunal ruled that an assistant to a TV craft business owner was a worker, not an employee, and awarded £7,209 for unpaid holiday pay and pension contributions.
Whistleblowing dismissal upheld: lift engineer awarded £12,600 after ACAS uplift
A lift engineer who raised safety concerns about unqualified workers was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded £12,609.52, including a 25% ACAS uplift for the employer's failure to follow disciplinary procedures.
Warehouse operative's indirect discrimination claims over Covid-sceptic beliefs struck out
A warehouse operative who resigned after refusing to comply with face-covering and testing rules had his indirect discrimination and constructive dismissal claims struck out after failing to pay a deposit order.