Self-employed DJ cannot bring unfair dismissal claim against hotel
A DJ who provided services to a hotel for six years was found to be self-employed, not a worker or employee, and his unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #self-employed
- #no-mutuality-of-obligation
- #no-substitution-right
- #invoiced-payments
- #own-equipment
Key facts
- The claimant provided DJ services to the respondent and invoiced for his work.
- The claimant was responsible for his own tax and National Insurance and was never on the respondent's payroll.
- The claimant provided his own equipment and did not have to wear a uniform.
- The claimant could work elsewhere and the respondent used other DJs.
- There was no obligation on the respondent to offer work or on the claimant to accept it.
- The claimant had no written contract and was not described as an employee or worker.
Timeline
-
Start of relationship
The claimant began providing DJ services to the respondent, trading as The County Hotel.
-
Email about diary
The claimant emailed stating he cleared his diary for the respondent but also sought private work.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
The claimant began early conciliation with ACAS.
-
ACAS certificate issued
Early conciliation certificate obtained.
-
Claimant stopped working
The claimant's last date of providing services to the respondent.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his ET1 claim form.
-
Respondent's response
The respondent filed its ET3 response, denying employment status.
-
Preliminary hearing ordered
Employment Judge Gardiner converted the final hearing into a preliminary hearing to determine status.
-
Preliminary hearing
The hearing took place remotely by video before Employment Judge Shore.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker and dismissed all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the DJ was an employee, a worker, or a self-employed contractor, which would determine if he could bring claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims because the DJ was not an employee or a worker.
Key reasons:
- There was no obligation on the hotel to offer work or on the DJ to accept it.
- The DJ invoiced for his work, paid his own tax and National Insurance, and was never on the payroll.
- He provided his own equipment, did not wear a uniform, and could work elsewhere.
- The hotel also used other DJs.
No compensation was awarded as the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you invoice for your work, pay your own tax, and provide your own equipment, you are likely to be self-employed rather than a worker or employee.
- A lack of mutuality of obligation — where neither side is obliged to offer or accept work — is a strong indicator of self-employment.
- Being able to work elsewhere and having no written contract describing you as an employee or worker further supports self-employed status.
- Tribunals will look at the reality of the working relationship, not just how the parties describe it.
- If you want employment rights, you need to establish that you are an employee or worker — self-employed contractors do not have protection against unfair dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
A DJ who worked regularly for a hotel over six years tried to claim unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal had to decide whether he was an employee, a worker, or self-employed — a crucial distinction that determines what legal protections apply.
The DJ invoiced for his work, paid his own tax, and provided his own equipment. He was not on the hotel's payroll and could turn down work. The hotel was also free to use other DJs. There was no written contract describing him as an employee or worker.
What the hotel did right
The hotel successfully argued that the DJ was self-employed because the relationship lacked mutuality of obligation — neither side was committed to offering or accepting work. The DJ's own actions, such as invoicing and working elsewhere, supported this. The tribunal agreed, dismissing all claims.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that a long working relationship does not automatically create employment status. Tribunals look at the reality of the arrangement, including who controls the work, who provides equipment, and whether there is an ongoing obligation. For anyone in a similar position, understanding these factors is essential before bringing a claim.
Similar cases
Property Operations Manager unable to bring employment claims after tribunal finds he was self-employed
A property operations manager who worked from home for a Dubai-based firm was found by the tribunal to be self-employed, not an employee or worker, meaning his claims could not proceed.
Self-employed surveyor's employment claim struck out: no reasonable prospect of success
A chartered surveyor who worked for Clements Agency Limited for nearly 30 years on a self-employed basis had his claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination struck out. The tribunal found he had no reasonable prospect of proving he was an employee.
Recruitment assessor for College of Policing found to be a worker, not an employee
A recruitment assessor who claimed unfair dismissal lost his case after the tribunal ruled he was a worker, not an employee, because the College of Policing had no obligation to provide work and he could refuse assignments.
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.