Self-employed IT contractor loses unfair dismissal claim for lack of worker status
A self-employed IT contractor who worked through his own limited company had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after the tribunal found he was neither an employee nor a worker of either respondent.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #self-employed-contractor
- #limited-company
- #tripartite-arrangement
- #failure-to-comply-with-orders
- #strike-out
Key facts
- The claimant was a director of Consultco Ltd, an IT consultancy.
- Consultco Ltd contracted with Investigo Ltd to provide services to the Department for Education.
- The claimant had less than two years' service and failed to clarify the basis of his unfair dismissal claim.
- The claimant failed to comply with multiple case management orders to provide evidence of his employment status.
- The tribunal found no contract between the claimant personally and either respondent.
- The claimant's claims were struck out for lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance.
Timeline
-
Assignment start
Consultco Ltd began providing services to the Department for Education via Investigo Ltd.
-
Contract signed
The claimant signed a contract between Consultco Ltd and Investigo Ltd as director.
-
Assignment terminated
Investigo Ltd terminated the contract with Consultco Ltd due to concerns about deliverables.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Early conciliation period began.
-
ACAS early conciliation ended
Early conciliation period ended.
-
Claim presented
The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay, and other payments.
-
Tribunal order
The tribunal ordered the claimant to clarify the basis of his unfair dismissal claim and warned about strike out.
-
Strike out of unfair dismissal and redundancy claims
Employment Judge Reid struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims due to non-compliance and lack of service.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard the issue of whether the claimant was an employee or worker of either respondent.
-
Judgment
Employment Judge Townley found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker and struck out the remaining claims.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant was an employee or worker of Investigo Ltd or the Department for Education, and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear his claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy, and other payments.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal and redundancy claims were struck out on 30 September 2022 for non-compliance with a tribunal order and because he had less than two years' service.
- The remaining claims (notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay, and other payments) were struck out on 6 December 2022 after a preliminary hearing found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of either respondent.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work through a limited company, you are unlikely to be an employee or worker of the end client or agency unless there is a personal contract of employment.
- Tribunals strictly enforce case management orders — failure to comply can result in claims being struck out without a hearing on the merits.
- You need at least two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless you fall within an exception such as automatic unfair dismissal.
- A Subject Access Request (SAR) to a respondent does not give the tribunal jurisdiction to order disclosure — it is a separate data protection matter.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficulties faced by contractors who work through their own limited company. The claimant, a director of Consultco Ltd, provided IT services to the Department for Education via Investigo Ltd. When the assignment was terminated after just a few months, he brought claims for unfair dismissal and other payments. However, because he had no direct contract with either respondent — the contract was between Consultco Ltd and Investigo Ltd — the tribunal found he was neither an employee nor a worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant's position was weakened from the start by his failure to comply with tribunal orders. He did not respond to an order asking him to explain how he could bring an unfair dismissal claim with less than two years' service, and he did not provide a witness statement on his employment status as ordered. Even if he had a strong case on worker status, the tribunal could strike out his claims for non-compliance alone. The claimant also attempted to use a Subject Access Request to delay proceedings, but the tribunal made clear that SARs are not within its jurisdiction.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that the 'employment' relationship in tripartite arrangements (end client, agency, and personal service company) is often not what it seems. Tribunals will look at the actual contractual arrangements, not the day-to-day reality of the work. For contractors, the only way to secure employment rights is to have a direct contract of employment with the end client or agency. The case also shows that tribunals will not hesitate to strike out claims where claimants fail to follow procedural orders, even if the underlying facts might have some merit.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A former employee who failed to attend hearings and ignored tribunal orders had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal also noted he had less than two years' service, which normally bars such claims.
Former employee's claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Navaratna South Indian Restaurant Ltd. was struck out after she failed to attend a hearing and did not comply with case management orders. No compensation was awarded.
Sales commission agent's claims struck out after failing to comply with orders and bringing claims too late
A sales commission agent who brought claims against five different employers had most of his case struck out because the claims were out of time and he failed to provide required details. The tribunal also found he lacked the two years' service needed for an unfair dismissal claim.
18-year nursing assistant's unfair dismissal claim struck out for non-compliance
A tribunal struck out an unfair dismissal claim by a nursing assistant with 18 years' service after she failed to comply with orders, including providing a witness statement. No compensation was awarded.