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.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #self-employed
- #employment-status
- #jurisdiction
- #no-mutuality-of-obligation
- #no-control
- #personal-service-not-required
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged as Property Operations Manager from 1 January 2019.
- The claimant worked from home in the UK, providing back-office support for property sales.
- The claimant was paid a salary for the first 6 months, then commission only.
- The claimant declared himself self-employed to HMRC and received a SEISS grant.
- The claimant had other business interests and was a director of several companies.
- The tribunal found no mutuality of obligation, no control, and no requirement for personal service.
Timeline
-
Mr Pigott pitches franchise model
Mr Pigott contacted the first respondent with a proposal to increase property sales, involving himself and the claimant.
-
Claimant's engagement begins
The claimant started working as Property Operations Manager under terms negotiated by Mr Pigott.
-
Offer letter issued
The claimant received a job offer letter with a salary of £4,000 per month for 6 months and commission thereafter.
-
Contract of Employment sent
HR sent a UAE-based contract of employment which did not reflect the actual working arrangements.
-
Mr Pigott confirms self-employed status
In an email, Mr Pigott stated that both he and the claimant were self-employed for Holborn.
-
Claimant applies for SEISS grant
The claimant received a SEISS government grant of over £13,000, declaring himself self-employed.
-
Mr Pigott leaves
Mr Pigott stopped working with the first respondent; Mr Wesley took over the property division.
-
Relationship terminated
The first respondent terminated the claimant's engagement with one month's notice.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee, a worker, or an employee under the Equality Act, and thus whether it could hear his claims for unfair dismissal, holiday pay, and other rights.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims because the claimant was not an employee or worker.
Key reasons:
- There was no mutuality of obligation between the claimant and Holborn Assets Insurance Brokers LLC.
- The claimant was not under the control of the respondent; he worked independently from home.
- The claimant was not required to provide personal service; he could send a substitute.
- The claimant declared himself self-employed to HMRC and received a SEISS grant.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work under a contract that does not require you to do the work personally, you are unlikely to be an employee or worker.
- Declaring yourself self-employed to HMRC and receiving a SEISS grant can be strong evidence against employee status.
- The absence of control over how, when, and where you work is a key factor in determining self-employment.
- If there is no ongoing obligation to provide or accept work (mutuality of obligation), you are probably not an employee.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how employment status is determined by the reality of the working relationship, not just what a contract says. The claimant worked from home as a property operations manager for Holborn Assets Insurance Brokers LLC, a Dubai-based firm. He was paid a salary for six months, then commission only. He declared himself self-employed to HMRC and received a SEISS grant of over £13,000. The tribunal found that there was no mutuality of obligation – the respondent was not obliged to provide work, and the claimant was not obliged to accept it. There was also no control over how the claimant worked, and he was not required to provide personal service; he could send a substitute.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant argued that he was an employee, but the evidence strongly pointed the other way. He had other business interests, was a director of several companies, and had even blogged about his working arrangements. To succeed, he would have needed to show that the reality of the relationship was one of employment – for example, that he was integrated into the business, subject to control, and required to do the work personally. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not provided any evidence of control or mutuality of obligation.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces the importance of the three key tests for employment status: mutuality of obligation, control, and personal service. Workers who are truly in business on their own account, with the freedom to work for others and the ability to send substitutes, will struggle to establish employee or worker status. The case also shows that how you present yourself to HMRC and the government can be used against you in an employment tribunal.
Similar cases
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.
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.
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.