Finance Officer found to be a worker, not an employee: status ruling opens door to some claims
A tribunal ruled that a finance officer who worked for eight years on a freelance basis was a 'worker' but not an 'employee', meaning he can pursue claims for holiday pay and unlawful deductions but not unfair dismissal.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #self-employed
- #freelance-arrangement
- #finance-officer
- #preliminary-issue
- #worker-status
- #employee-status
Key facts
- The Claimant worked as a Finance Officer for the Respondent from 3 February 2011 to 28 February 2019.
- The Claimant was engaged on a freelance basis and invoiced the Respondent for his services.
- The Claimant had a pre-existing accountancy business and was registered as self-employed.
- The Claimant never sought to provide a substitute for his work.
- The Claimant worked fixed hours on regular days at the Respondent's premises using its equipment.
- The Claimant was not given employee benefits such as holiday pay, sick pay, or pension enrolment.
Timeline
-
Interview
The Claimant was interviewed for the Temporary Finance Officer role.
-
Agreement on freelance basis
A meeting took place where it was agreed the Claimant would work on a freelance basis, as evidenced by a letter of the same date.
-
Start of engagement
The Claimant began working for the Respondent as a Finance Officer.
-
First invoice
The Claimant issued his first invoice for professional services rendered.
-
Claimant raises contract concerns
The Claimant emailed asking for his contract to be reviewed and raised the issue of holiday pay.
-
Respondent confirms freelance status
Olivene Howell wrote to the Claimant confirming the freelance arrangement and that he was not entitled to holiday pay.
-
Claimant requests contract review
The Claimant wrote to the Board of Trustees proposing either permanent employment or a pay increase.
-
Pay increase granted
The Board agreed to increase the Claimant's hourly rate by £1.50.
-
Grievance raised
The Claimant raised a grievance asserting he was an employee.
-
Engagement ends
The relationship between the Claimant and Respondent ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the finance officer was an employee, a worker, or self-employed for the purposes of bringing claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, protected disclosures, unlawful deductions, holiday pay, and equal pay.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the finance officer was not an employee under section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so his claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract (notice pay) could not proceed. However, he was a worker under section 230(3)(b) of the ERA and in employment under section 83(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, allowing his claims for unlawful deductions, holiday pay, and equal pay to continue.
The key reason was that while the finance officer worked regular hours at the respondent's premises using its equipment, he had always invoiced for his services, was registered as self-employed, and the parties had agreed on a freelance basis from the outset. The tribunal found no mutuality of obligation sufficient for an employment contract, but there was enough personal service and control to make him a worker.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the hearing only determined the preliminary issue of status.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work regular hours at a company's premises using its equipment, you may be a worker even if you invoice for your services and are registered as self-employed.
- A written agreement stating you are self-employed is not conclusive — tribunals look at the reality of the working relationship.
- Workers have fewer rights than employees (e.g., no unfair dismissal protection) but are still entitled to holiday pay, minimum wage, and protection from unlawful deductions.
- If you have consistently treated yourself as self-employed (e.g., by filing tax returns as such), it will be harder to argue you are an employee later.
- Length of service (eight years in this case) does not automatically convert a freelance arrangement into an employment contract if the original basis was genuinely self-employed.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how employment status can be a grey area, especially for long-term freelancers who work closely with a single client. The finance officer had been with Stratford Advice Arcade for eight years, working fixed hours at its premises using its equipment. Yet because he invoiced monthly, was registered as self-employed, and had agreed to a freelance arrangement from the start, the tribunal found he was not an employee.
However, the tribunal did find he was a worker — a middle category that gives some protections but not the full suite of employment rights. This means his claims for holiday pay, unlawful deductions, and equal pay can go ahead, but not his unfair dismissal or breach of contract claims.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent argued the finance officer was a genuine self-employed contractor running his own accountancy business. But the tribunal noted that he never provided a substitute, worked only for the respondent, and was integrated into its operations. If the respondent had wanted to avoid any employment rights, it could have structured the arrangement more clearly as a business-to-business contract, for example by allowing substitution or by the finance officer using his own equipment.
For the claimant, the lesson is that even if you have a written agreement stating you are self-employed, the reality of how you work matters. Regular hours, personal service, and control by the company all point towards worker or employee status.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment status is a preliminary issue that can make or break a claim. Many people in long-term freelance roles may assume they are self-employed, but the law may give them worker status — entitling them to holiday pay, rest breaks, and the national minimum wage. However, without employee status, they cannot claim unfair dismissal or certain contractual rights. Anyone considering a tribunal claim should first check their status carefully, as it determines which claims are possible.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Housekeeper in shared home not an employee: claim dismissed with costs order
A woman who lived in a man's home and performed housekeeping tasks was found not to be an employee or worker, leading to dismissal of her unfair dismissal claim and a costs order of £11,130.
Whistleblowing tractor operative awarded £94,838 after being sent home and dismissed
A tractor operative who reported unsafe equipment to the Environment Agency and his employer was subjected to detriment and dismissed. The tribunal awarded him £94,838.50 for injury to feelings, unpaid wages, and the employer's failure to provide written particulars.