Injured at Work Self Employed – What Are Your Rights?
Have you been injured at work while self-employed and want to know your rights?
You are not alone.
In the UK, around 4.57 million people are self-employed. But in many workplace injury cases, the word “self-employed” may be only a label. It does not always reflect the true legal relationship between the worker, the business they worked for, and the person or company responsible for the injury.
Many people believe that if they were called self-employed, they cannot claim compensation for an injury at work. That is not always correct.
This article explains whether you may have the right to bring a claim against the business you worked for, even if you were told that you were self-employed.
If you need free initial advice about an injury at work while self-employed, you can contact us here: https://www.businesslegaladvice.co.uk/
Being self-employed does not always end the question
This article is different from a standard employment status article.
In another article, I explain the difference between being self-employed, a limb (b) worker, and an employee under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That question matters for employment rights such as holiday pay, unlawful deductions from wages, unfair treatment at work, and other statutory protections.
This article is about a different question:
If you were injured at work, can you bring a claim against the business you worked for, even if you were told you were self-employed?
The answer may be yes.
In personal injury and vicarious liability cases, the court may look beyond the label and examine the reality of the working relationship. One important concept is whether the relationship was “akin to employment”.
What does “akin to employment” mean?
“The law of vicarious liability is on the move.” So stated Lord Phillips in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56, commonly known as the Christian Brothers case.
That principle matters because the law does not always stop at the words used in a contract. A business may still face liability where the work was carried out as part of its enterprise, for its benefit, under its arrangements, and where the person involved was not truly running an independent business of their own.
The “akin to employment” test is different from limb (b) worker status under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It exists for a different legal purpose. Limb (b) worker status is about employment rights. “Akin to employment” is mainly used in the law of vicarious liability, where the court asks whether it is fair, just and reasonable to make one person or business legally responsible for the wrongful act of another.
However, both areas of law share an important practical idea:
The label “self-employed” is not always the final answer. The real question is how the relationship worked in practice.
Why does “akin to employment” matter if you were injured at work?
The idea of a relationship being “akin to employment” helps explain why a business may sometimes be legally responsible for harm caused in the course of work, even where the person involved was not a formal employee.
In Christian Brothers, Lord Phillips identified a number of policy reasons why it is usually fair, just and reasonable to make an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee in the course of employment.
Those reasons included that:
the employer is more likely to have the means, and insurance, to compensate the victim;
the wrongdoing is committed during activity carried out on behalf of the employer;
the activity is likely to be part of the employer’s business;
the employer created the risk by assigning the work to the person; and
the person doing the work is, to some degree, under the employer’s control.
These factors matter because they show that the court is not only interested in the label used by the parties. The court looks at the reality of the relationship and asks whether the work was being carried out as part of the defendant’s business or enterprise.
However, these factors are not a simple checklist. In Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, the Supreme Court made clear that the key question remains whether the person was carrying on a truly independent business of their own, or whether the relationship was sufficiently close to employment to justify imposing vicarious liability.
For someone injured at work while described as self-employed, this can be important. If the work was carried out for the business, as part of its normal operations, under its arrangements, and not as part of a genuinely separate business, the label “self-employed” may not end the question.
Key elements of “akin to employment”
The courts look at the reality of the working relationship. Relevant factors include:
Element | What it means |
Activity carried out on behalf of the defendant | The work was being done for the defendant, not simply as an outside service. |
Activity forms part of the defendant’s business or organisation | The person was integrated into the defendant’s normal business activities. |
Work done for the defendant’s benefit | The work advanced the defendant’s business, enterprise, mission, or organisation. |
The defendant created or assigned the risk | The defendant gave the person the work or placed them in the situation where the risk arose. |
Some degree of control | Control is relevant, although modern employment does not always involve close day-to-day supervision. |
Not a truly independent business | This is often central. If the person was running their own separate business, the relationship is less likely to be akin to employment. |
The full relationship matters | The court does not simply tick boxes. It looks at the practical details of how the work was actually arranged. |
In simple terms, the court may ask:
Was the person really acting as part of the business, or were they genuinely running an independent business of their own?
This question can be very important if you were injured at work and the business says it is not responsible because you, or the person who caused the injury, were “self-employed”.
Signs that your work may have been closer to employment
You may have a stronger argument if:
you worked mainly or only for one business;
the business told you where to go and what work to do;
you had to follow its instructions, rotas, routes, systems, or site rules;
you wore its uniform, used its ID badge, vehicle, tools, or equipment;
you were presented to customers, clients, or other workers as part of that business;
you did not genuinely negotiate your own price or terms;
you could not realistically send someone else in your place;
the work you did was part of the business’s ordinary operations;
the injury happened because of a risk created by the way the business organised the work.
The more the business controlled the work and benefited from it as part of its own operation, the harder it may be for it to rely on the label “self-employed” as a complete answer.
Example: self-employed in name, but working as part of the business
Imagine a person is told they are self-employed. They are sent to the same site every day. They are told what time to arrive, what work to do, what equipment to use, and how the job must be completed. They work under the company’s system, follow its instructions, and are presented to others as part of that business.
If that person is injured because of unsafe equipment, unsafe working methods, or another worker’s negligence, the business may not be able to simply say:
“You were self-employed, so we are not responsible.”
The court may look at the full relationship and ask whether the person was really operating an independent business, or whether they were working as part of the defendant’s enterprise.
What if the injury was caused by another self-employed worker?
This is where vicarious liability can become particularly important.
A business may argue that it is not responsible because the person who caused the injury was also self-employed. But that is not always the end of the matter.
The legal question may be whether the person who caused the injury was carrying out work as part of the defendant’s business and whether the relationship was sufficiently close to employment. If so, the business may still be legally responsible for that person’s wrongful act.
Again, the court will look at substance, not just labels.
Relevant questions may include:
Who assigned the work?
Who controlled the site or system of work?
Who benefited from the work?
Was the work part of the business’s normal operations?
Was the person genuinely running their own independent business?
Did the business create or increase the risk that led to the injury?
What if the business owed you a direct duty of care?
Vicarious liability is not the only possible route.
In some workplace injury cases, the business may also owe a direct duty of care. This may arise where the business controlled the workplace, equipment, system of work, training, supervision, or health and safety arrangements.
For example, a business may be responsible if it failed to:
provide a safe place of work;
maintain safe equipment;
provide proper instructions;
manage obvious risks;
separate workers from dangerous activity;
carry out appropriate risk assessments;
respond to known hazards.
So even where the business argues that you were self-employed, there may still be a claim if the injury was caused by unsafe working conditions or failures in the way the work was organised.
What evidence can help your claim?
If you were injured at work while self-employed, evidence will be very important.
Useful evidence may include:
written contracts or terms of engagement;
WhatsApp messages, texts, emails, or job instructions;
rotas, delivery sheets, job sheets, or site records;
photographs of the accident location;
photographs of defective equipment or unsafe conditions;
witness details;
accident book entries;
medical records;
invoices or payment records;
evidence showing who controlled the work;
evidence showing whether you could realistically work for others;
evidence showing whether you were presented as part of the business.
Messages and documents can be especially important because they may show how the relationship actually worked in practice.
Do not assume you have no claim because you were called self-employed
Many injured workers do not seek advice because they think the label “self-employed” means they have no rights.
That assumption can be wrong.
The real question is not simply what you were called. The real question is what happened in practice:
Who controlled the work?
Who created the risk?
Who benefited from the work?
Was the work part of the business’s operation?
Were you, or the person who caused the injury, truly running an independent business?
If the working relationship was closer to employment than genuine self-employment, you may still have a claim.
Injured at work while self-employed? Get initial advice
If you were injured at work while self-employed, or if the business is refusing responsibility because you were described as self-employed, you should take advice before accepting that answer.
The label may not be decisive.
You may still have rights if the injury happened while you were working as part of the business, under its arrangements, and because of a risk created by the way the work was organised.
For free initial advice, contact us here:
Comments