Employment Status: Dentist was not a Worker

1 min

Posted on 15 Sep 2010

In Community Dental Centres Ltd v Sultan-Darmon the EAT found that the unfettered right of substitution (i.e. that if Dr Sultan-Darman could not work, he could chose (not the company) a substitute to work in his place) in Dr Sultan-Darman’s contract meant that he was not a worker, but an independent contractor.  

Dr Sultan-Darman, a dentist, brought an unlawful deductions claim against his dental surgery.  The EAT held that Dr Sultan-Darman's right of substitution meant that he could not be a worker, because he was not obliged to "perform personally any work or services".  He therefore was not entitled to bring a claim for unlawful deduction of wages.   

The EAT confirmed the principle that where a genuine right of substitution exists, there cannot be worker status.  Most employers will be keen to have some say/control over in who will substitute for their contractors, this may mean that it is risk that the contractor will be deemed a “worker” and as a result have employment rights. 

The articles published on this website, current at the date of publication, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your own circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.

Back to top