TC09663 - [2025] UKFTT 01250 (TC)

Section 44(1)(a) does not require an obligation (whether contractual or otherwise) on the worker’s part to provide services personally, but simply refers to whether the worker did personally provide services.

The dog detection services provided by the Appellant depended on the handler’s work. Without the handler’s presence, it would be impossible to realise effective search detection services. In respect of every engagement for which the Appellant was paid, a dog-handler did personally provide services to the end client, along with the dog.

For the purposes of s 44(1)(a), the search dogs are treated like any other piece of specialist security equipment operated by trained personnel

The contract between the Appellant and its clients provides the client and/or the Appellant with the right of SDC over the dog-handlers.

The contract between the Appellant and its clients refers to KPIs which the handlers need to achieve, site rules for the handlers to abide by, training to complete, and assignment instructions to follow.

The contract between the Appellant and the handlers refers to disciplinary procedures if the operatives do not perform the services to the standards required.

The contract provides Mr Stone with the right to allocate tasks to the dog-handlers, at his discretion.

The assignment instructions provide directions for the dog-handlers to follow, and explain how the services are to be provided. It also details the dress code for the dog-handlers to abide by.

The Appellant has standard operating procedures in place for the dog-handlers to follow, which detail how the services are to be provided and refer to a supervisor. There are also briefings provided by the clients to the dog-handlers.

The Appellant conducts a number of training sessions with the dog-handlers to ensure they provide services to a suitable standard.