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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #employment-status
- #personal-service
- #mutuality-of-obligation
- #control
- #integration
- #substitution-right
- #invoicing-arrangement
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged as a primary school teacher from January 2019, initially through a supply agency then directly invoicing via her limited company.
- From September 2019, the claimant worked consistently as a class teacher and later became Head of Early Years and Deputy Head.
- There was no written contract between the parties at any time.
- The claimant was required to personally perform the work and could not substitute another teacher.
- The respondent exercised control over the claimant's duties and she was integrated into the school's operations.
- The respondent paid the claimant to the end of December 2021 after termination, which the tribunal found akin to notice pay.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts as supply teacher via agency
The claimant was supplied by an agency for the first week and was a self-employed contractor.
-
Direct engagement begins
The respondent asked the claimant to continue directly, cutting out the agency. She invoiced via Steele Education Ltd.
-
Claimant starts new academic year as class teacher
The tribunal found that from this date, mutuality of obligation and control were established, creating an implied contract of employment.
-
Claimant appointed Head of Early Years and Deputy Head
The claimant successfully applied for the role and was also referred to as Deputy Head Teacher on the school website.
-
Alleged protected disclosure
The claimant contends she made a protected disclosure, which she says led to her dismissal.
-
Claimant dismissed and escorted from premises
The respondent terminated the claimant's engagement, with a letter stating her last working day would be 10 December 2021.
-
Last working day
The claimant's last day of work, as stated in the termination letter.
-
ET1 claim issued
The claimant issued her first claim form for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, race discrimination, wrongful dismissal, and unpaid wages.
-
Second claim issued
The claimant issued a second claim for unpaid holiday and notice pay, later consolidated with the first.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on the claimant's employment status.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the teacher was an employee, worker, or self-employed contractor for the purposes of her claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, race discrimination, and unpaid wages.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the teacher was an employee from September 2019 until her dismissal in December 2021, and a worker from January to August 2019.
Key reasons:
- There was mutuality of obligation and control from September 2019.
- The teacher was required to personally perform the work and could not send a substitute.
- She was integrated into the school's operations, becoming Head of Early Years and Deputy Head.
- The invoicing arrangement via her limited company did not negate the employment relationship.
No compensation was awarded at this preliminary hearing; the decision on status allows her claims to proceed to a full hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Invoicing through a limited company does not automatically make you self-employed; tribunals look at the reality of the working relationship.
- If you are required to personally perform work and cannot send a substitute, that is a strong indicator of employment.
- Long-term integration into an organisation, such as taking on management roles, supports employee status.
- The absence of a written contract does not prevent an implied contract of employment from arising.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how tribunals look beyond paperwork to determine employment status. The teacher had no written contract and invoiced via her limited company, but the reality was that she worked as an integral part of the school, taking on roles like Head of Early Years and Deputy Head. She was required to do the work herself and could not send a substitute. The tribunal found that from September 2019, there was enough mutuality of obligation and control to create an implied contract of employment.
What the school could have done differently
Orchard Prep Ltd could have avoided this outcome by having a clear written contract that reflected the true nature of the relationship. If they intended the teacher to be self-employed, they should have allowed her to send a substitute and given her more control over her work. Instead, they treated her like an employee in practice, which is what the tribunal found.
Why this result matters
This decision allows the teacher to pursue claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, race discrimination, and unpaid wages. For other workers in similar arrangements, it shows that employment rights can exist even when you invoice through a limited company. The key factors are personal service, control, and integration into the business.
Similar cases
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.
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.
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.
Commission-only literary agent held not to be an employee for unfair dismissal claim
A literary agent paid solely by commission lost his unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal ruled he was not an employee. The case shows the importance of control, mutuality of obligation, and personal service in determining employment status.