Self-employed therapist loses status battle against police force
A therapist who provided counselling to police staff was found to be self-employed, not a worker or employee, and his claims for unfair dismissal and holiday pay were dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #self-employed
- #therapist
- #occupational-health
- #police-force
- #preliminary-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant provided therapy sessions to police staff from mid-2018 until July 2022.
- The claimant was paid a fixed, non-negotiable rate per session and submitted invoices.
- The claimant paid his own tax and National Insurance, and arranged his own professional accreditation.
- The claimant had no obligation to accept work and the number of sessions fluctuated.
- Both parties believed and intended the claimant to be self-employed at the time.
- The claimant could not send a substitute to complete a series of therapy sessions with a staff member.
Timeline
-
Start of engagement
The claimant began providing therapy services to the respondent's staff, initially via Healthwork Limited.
-
Direct engagement begins
The claimant ceased employment with Healthwork Limited and began providing therapy directly to the respondent, invoicing them directly.
-
Reduced other work
Until May 2021, the claimant also provided therapy for another organisation.
-
Increased to two days per week
The claimant increased his work with the respondent to two days per week when another counsellor started maternity leave.
-
Termination of arrangement
The respondent terminated the claimant's arrangement in July 2022.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on the issue of the claimant's employment status.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Buzzard found the claimant was self-employed and dismissed all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the therapist was an employee, a worker, or self-employed, which determined whether he could bring claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims after finding the therapist was self-employed.
Key reasons:
- The therapist paid his own tax and National Insurance, submitted invoices, and had no obligation to accept work.
- Both parties believed and intended the therapist to be self-employed throughout the engagement.
- Although the therapist could not send a substitute to complete a series of sessions, this alone did not make him a worker or employee.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you pay your own tax, set your own hours, and have no obligation to accept work, you are likely self-employed, not a worker or employee.
- Both parties' intentions at the start of the relationship are important evidence in determining employment status.
- Being required to perform work personally does not automatically make you a worker or employee if you are running your own business.
- A tribunal will look at the whole picture, including whether you work for multiple clients and bear your own financial risk.
When self-employment means no employment rights
This case shows how the line between self-employment and worker status can be decisive for tribunal claims. The therapist had provided counselling to police staff for several years, paid his own tax, and invoiced for each session. When the arrangement ended, he tried to claim unfair dismissal and holiday pay, but the tribunal first had to decide his status.
What the tribunal looked at
The judge examined the practical reality of the relationship. The therapist had no obligation to accept work, his sessions fluctuated, and he worked for other organisations. He paid his own National Insurance and arranged his own professional accreditation. Both parties had always intended the arrangement to be self-employed. Although the therapist could not send a substitute to complete a course of therapy, that factor alone was not enough to make him a worker.
What the losing side could have done differently
For the therapist, the key difficulty was that the evidence strongly supported self-employment. To succeed, he would have needed to show a greater degree of control by the police force, such as fixed hours, an obligation to accept work, or integration into the force's business. None of that was present here.
Why this matters
This decision is a reminder that tribunals look at the whole picture, not just one factor. Being required to do the work yourself is necessary for worker status but not sufficient. If you run your own business, bear financial risk, and have multiple clients, you are likely self-employed even if you cannot send a substitute. Anyone considering a similar claim should first assess their employment status carefully, as it determines which rights they can enforce.
Similar cases
Night porter with type 2 diabetes found disabled from date of diagnosis
A tribunal ruled that a night porter with type 2 diabetes was disabled from the date of his diagnosis, but rejected his claim that sleepiness was a substantial adverse effect. The case will now proceed to a final hearing on his discrimination and dismissal claims.
Payments consultant allowed to add minimum wage and wrongful dismissal claims
A tribunal has granted a payments consultant permission to amend his claim to include wrongful dismissal and National Minimum Wage complaints, but refused to add automatic unfair dismissal. The case highlights the hurdles of bringing claims when working through a limited company.
Funeral director with 31 years' service fails to establish disability status
An employment tribunal has ruled that a funeral director with 31 years' service was not a disabled person under the Equality Act, dismissing his disability discrimination claims.
Long-term sickness dismissal: employer's flawed process saved by fair appeal
A station support assistant lost his unfair dismissal claim after 20 months off work. The tribunal found the initial decision to dismiss was premature, but the appeal corrected the flaw.