D Egan v Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust and Globe Locums Ltd: 2207350/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 2024 |
| Date | 08 May 2024 |
| Published date | 04 June 2024 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 2207350/2021 |
Case Number: 2207350/2021
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Dillan Egan
First Respondent: Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Second Respondent: Globe Locums Ltd
Heard at: London Central
On: 16 and 17 April 2024
Before: Employment Judge Bunting
Appearances
For the Claimant: In person
For the First Respondent: Mr A Ohringer, counsel
For the Second Respondent: Ms Isabel Kiff, contracts manager
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that :
1. The claimant was not an employee or worker of the first respondent, and the
claims against the first respondent are not well founded and are therefore
dismissed.
2. The claim against the second respondent is not one that the Tribunal has
jurisdiction over, and is therefore dismissed.
Case Number: 2207350/2021
REASONS
INTRODUCTION
1. By a claim form received by the Employment Tribunal on 01 December 2021, the
Claimant brings a claim against the first respondent under a number of different
headings including unfair dismissal and discrimination.
2. The claims that the claimant seeks to bring relate to the end of his claimed
employment and the manner in which this brought to an end. For the purposes of
the hearing before me, the exact claims do not matter, as it was listed for a
preliminary hearing to determine the question of the claimant’s employment status.
3. In brief, he states that he was employed by the first respondent, which is an NHS
Foundation Trust running an NHS hospital and ancillary services, from 24 May 2021
until 24 August 2021 as a physiotherapist.
4. The first respondent’s position is that whilst it agrees that the claimant was working
at the hospital at the times stated, he was not employed by them.
5. The second respondent, as it now is, is a Healthcare Recruitment Agency that
specialises in, to put it neutrally assisting suitably qualified healthcare professionals
secure work in a healthcare setting.
6. The second respondent was originally the third respondent. At that point the second
respondent was PB Grape Ltd. They were a payroll company that purported to be
the employer of the claimant.
7. In this judgment, I will refer to the first respondent as ‘the hospital’, the now second
respondent as ‘Globe’ and the former second respondent as ‘PB Grape’.
Case Number: 2207350/2021
8. The claimant notified ACAS on 11 October 2021 with the certificate being issued on
26 October 2021.
9. An ET3 was received from the hospital (page 36) and from Globe on 05 January
2022.
10. The hospital’s ET3 is undated, but the grounds of resistance (page 44) attached to
it are dated 07 February 2022.
11. In this, substantive grounds of opposition to the individual complaints are given.
12. In addition, in relation to the employment situation, the hospital states that they did
not employ the claimant. Rather, he was supplied to them by Globe (which, it is said,
is a ‘temporary work agency’ for the purposes of the Agency Workers Regulation
2010. To the extent that there was a contract between Paid by Grape and Globe,
this was not something that the hospital was aware of.
13. Globe raised the fact that there had not been any ACAS notification to them and, on
the face of it, none of the exceptions apply.
14. The only claim raised against them was (see para 37 Particulars of Claim attached
to the ET1) was ‘Civil Fraud by deception’, which was particularised as ‘forcing the
use of Umbrella Companies where to offset employers liability for ENICs’.
15. A time limit issue was raised and, in relation to the substantive issue, it was said that
the claimant had voluntarily used an umbrella company.
Procedural History
16. The case was first listed in the Tribunal on 24 June 2022 in front of EJ Frazer. The
claimant attended, as did the hospital through Mr Newcombe, a solicitor.
17. Prior to the hearing, the claimant had indicated an intention to withdraw his claims
against PB Grape and Globe. This was ventilated at the hearing. By that point, PB
Grape had gone into liquidation.
To continue reading
Request your trial