Quality Consultant via limited company not a worker: tribunal lacks jurisdiction
A Quality Consultant who provided services through his own limited company was found not to be a worker or employee of the end-user, Benson Viscometers Ltd, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear his claims.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #limited-company
- #umbrella-contract
- #substitution-clause
- #jurisdiction
Key facts
- The Claimant provided services as a Quality Consultant through his limited company via an agency.
- The contractual documentation showed an agreement between the agency and the Claimant's limited company, not directly with the Respondent.
- The Claimant was paid gross via timesheets and was responsible for his own tax and National Insurance.
- The Claimant worked for only 17 days before being removed from the assignment.
- The Tribunal found the contractual arrangements genuine and reflecting the actual relationship.
Timeline
-
Respondent contacts agency
Ms Chun contacted Blackfields (STR Ltd) to find a Quality Manager, initially seeking an employee.
-
Claimant's CV sent to Respondent
Mr Bridgland emailed Ms Chun the Claimant's CV and pro forma indicating limited company engagement.
-
Claimant discusses terms
Claimant emailed Mr Bridgland about travel costs and suggested a 3-month contract with potential permanent role in 2022.
-
Interview
Ms Chun interviewed the Claimant; travel costs and higher pay discussed.
-
Assignment summary sent
Mr Bridgland sent an assignment summary for a Quality Consultant via Liquid Friday Ltd, with start date 13/09/2021 and end date 13/06/2022.
-
Claimant starts work
Claimant commenced engagement as a Quality Consultant for the Respondent.
-
Limited company details provided
Claimant provided his limited company 'David L B Hughes Quality and Certification Experts Limited' to the agency.
-
Termination
Ms Chun asked the agency to remove the Claimant; Mr Bridgland terminated the assignment with immediate effect.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims for wrongful dismissal, age discrimination, holiday pay, and unpaid wages.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a person who provides services through a limited company via an agency can be considered a worker or employee of the end-user client, and whether there was an implied contract between them.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims for age discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, and unpaid wages because it had no jurisdiction.
The key reason was that the contractual documentation showed an agreement between the agency and the consultant's limited company, not directly with Benson Viscometers Ltd. The arrangements were genuine and accurately reflected the relationship, with the consultant being paid gross via timesheets and responsible for his own tax and NI.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work through a limited company via an agency, you are unlikely to be considered a worker or employee of the end-user client, unless the contractual arrangements are a sham.
- Tribunals will look at the genuine contractual documentation and the actual working relationship, not just the day-to-day activities.
- Claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination, or unpaid wages against an end-user may fail if there is no direct contract of employment or worker relationship.
- It is important to check who your legal employer or engager is before bringing a tribunal claim.
This case shows the importance of understanding your employment status when working through a limited company via an agency. The consultant had only worked for 17 days before being removed, but his claims failed because the tribunal found he was not a worker or employee of the end-user.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal examined the contractual chain: the agency contracted with the consultant's limited company, not with him personally. He was paid gross and handled his own tax. The tribunal found these arrangements genuine and not a sham, so no implied contract existed between the consultant and Benson Viscometers Ltd.
What could have been done differently
The consultant could have sought a direct employment contract with the end-user or ensured the agency arrangement clearly stated his status. However, the tribunal noted that the genuine contractual structure meant he was not a worker, regardless of the short assignment.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that tribunals will respect genuine contractual arrangements, even where the individual performs work personally. Those using limited companies should be aware that they may not have employment rights against the end-user client, and should consider their own contractual protections.
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.
Agency worker's unfair dismissal claim struck out due to short service and early conciliation error
A security officer who worked for only a few weeks had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he lacked two years' service and had used the wrong company for early conciliation. His discrimination claims were allowed to proceed.
Withdrawn unfair dismissal claim: no power to revive after reconsideration
A former employee who withdrew her unfair dismissal claim against Landmark Space Ltd could not revive it, even after applying for reconsideration. The tribunal confirmed it has no power to set aside a withdrawal.
Agency worker's multiple claims struck out: no jurisdiction and out of time
An agency worker who worked for less than two years had his unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claims dismissed by the tribunal, along with human exploitation allegations which the tribunal had no power to hear.