Following the recent N Sejpal-v-Rodericks Dental case (EAT-2020-001407-AT), there has been
discussion in the dental sector about the status of Associates and whether they are self-employed,
workers, or both. Worker status is relevant for tax, employment rights including holidays and
discrimination claims. Many Associates will prefer self-employment due to the flexibility and tax
benefits. However, it could be the case that one could be considered self-employed for tax purposes
by HMRC and still be a worker.
Senior Partner at Dental Accountants, Morris & Co, Nick Ledingham explained, “this is an extremely
complicated area and there is no ‘one size fits all’ I’m afraid. Employment law is very case specific
and in my experience, the issue will not affect all Associates. As ever, it is important to seek
specialist advice.”
Chris Davies, Head of Healthcare at JCP Solicitors said: “There are a number of factors to consider
when examining any healthcare employment case, with the issue of personal service, in particular,
set to be crucial when looking into the issue of an individual’s employment status for employment
rights purposes.
“This is an evolving area of the law, and we are monitoring influential cases which could set a
precedent such as N Sejpal-v-Rodericks Dental Limited, which has been remitted back to the
Employment Tribunal for final determination following a successful appeal to the Employment
Appeal Tribunal. This case could have wide-ranging implications for the future of healthcare
employment law, so we are watching this carefully.
“Employment rights and the issue of self-employment in the healthcare sector is a highly complex
area of law and should be approached with expertise on a case-by-case basis.”
Dental practices across the country would be wise to keep this particular case under review and to
follow the outcome as to how the employment tribunal deals with the questions of:
• whether individuals are carrying on a profession or business undertaking; and
• whether and in what circumstances a party is likely to be considered a client or customer
in the context of dental practice relationships with Associates.
Employment cases are very fact specific. However, the outcome of the aforementioned case could
potentially have implications for dental practices across the country, who tend to operate on the
basis that Dental Associates are self-employed and not employees or workers.
To view the article please download the PDF