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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #independent-chair
- #fostering-panel
- #office-holder
- #mutuality-of-obligation
- #control
- #personal-service
Key facts
- The claimant was appointed as Independent Chair of the respondent's Fostering Panel from 13 February 2008.
- The claimant's appointment was terminated on 28 May 2021.
- The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
- The respondent argued the claimant was an office holder, not an employee.
- The tribunal found no mutuality of obligation or sufficient control to establish employee status.
- The tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Timeline
-
Appointment as Independent Chair
The claimant was appointed as Independent Chair of the respondent's Fostering Panel.
-
Regulation change
New Fostering Services Regulations came into effect requiring the Panel Chair to be independent of the fostering service provider.
-
Termination of appointment
The respondent terminated the claimant's appointment on one month's notice.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
The claimant commenced the ACAS early conciliation process.
-
ACAS certificate issued
The ACAS early conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim form to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing
A preliminary hearing was held to determine the claimant's employment status.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal issued its judgment that the claimant was not an employee and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which would give it jurisdiction to hear her unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims because it had no jurisdiction. The key reason was that the claimant was an office holder, not an employee. There was no mutuality of obligation – the council was not obliged to offer work, and the claimant was not obliged to accept it. The council also lacked sufficient control over how she performed her role. As a result, the tribunal could not hear her claims for unfair dismissal or breach of contract. No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you hold a statutory or independent role, check whether you are an employee or an office holder – employee status is needed for unfair dismissal rights.
- A long period of service does not automatically make you an employee; the tribunal looks at the actual working relationship, including control and mutuality of obligation.
- If you are an office holder, you may still have other legal protections (e.g., discrimination or whistleblowing) but not unfair dismissal or breach of contract.
- Before bringing a claim, consider seeking advice on your employment status – a preliminary hearing may be needed to decide jurisdiction.
What this case shows
This case highlights a common trap for professionals who hold independent or statutory roles. The claimant had served as Independent Chair of Dorset Council's Fostering Panel for 13 years, but when her appointment was terminated, she discovered she had no right to claim unfair dismissal. The tribunal ruled she was an office holder, not an employee, because the council did not have enough control over her work and there was no ongoing obligation to provide or accept work.
What could have been done differently
The council could have made the claimant's employment status clearer from the outset. A written contract stating she was an employee would have given her statutory protection. However, the nature of the role – required by regulations to be independent – made employee status difficult to establish. The claimant might have sought legal advice earlier to understand her rights, but the tribunal found the relationship lacked the essential features of employment.
Why this matters
This decision affects many people in similar roles, such as panel chairs, independent reviewers, or non-executive directors. Just because you work regularly for an organisation does not mean you are an employee. The tribunal applies strict tests: mutuality of obligation and control. Without these, you cannot bring unfair dismissal or breach of contract claims, even after many years of service. If you hold a position that requires independence by law or regulation, it is especially important to clarify your employment status before any dispute arises.
Similar cases
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.
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.
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.
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.