TC09663 - [2025] UKFTT 01250 (TC)

Mr Young submits that there are no workers in this appeal because there is a “supply of services”. Mr Young further submits that the services provided by the Appellant were in the nature of dog detection services, and that these services were not personally provided by the dog-handlers. In further amplification of this submission, he once again asserts that this is because the dog-handler is not an ‘individual’, or a ‘worker’. He adds that the subcontractor (the dog-handler) is making a composite supply of dog detection services to the Appellant, which goes beyond the supply of an individual worker and should not be categorised as personally provided service. We are not in agreement with these submissions. This is because what the legislation requires is an ‘individual’ (i.e., a human being). Breaking down the wording of the legislative provision, s 44(1)(a) refers to “an individual (‘the worker’)”. Mr O’Ryan and Mr Thornborrow, together with the list of those included in the Determination, are individuals who were engaged by the Appellant.

Furthermore, although the Fulham and Chelsea contracts referred - in the recital and description of the services that the Appellant would supply - to the provision of search dog operatives, we are satisfied that both parties would have known, and understood, that the search dog operative would come with a dog.