Dr R Cottam v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board: 22305397/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 2022 |
| Date | 29 November 2022 |
| Published date | 21 December 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 22305397/2021 |
Case No: 22305397/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Dr R Cottam
Respondent: NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board
Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal (by CVP) On: 9 and 10
November 2022
Before: Employment Judge T Perry
Representation
Claimant: Mr J Arnold (Counsel)
Respondent: Mr P Sangha (Counsel)
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant was an employee of the Respondent from 2014. The Claimant’s claim for
unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds.
2. The Claimant is not entitled to a redundancy payment under section 136 Employment
Rights Act 1996.
REASONS
Claim and issues
1. At the start of the hearing it was confirmed that the correct Respondent is NHS Sussex
Integrated Care Board. This is the successor to the Brighton and Hove Clinical
Commissioning Group, which was the initial Respondent.
2. The Claimant brings a claim of unfair dismissal under section 95 Employment Rights
Act 1996 and seeks a determination that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy
payment under s163 Employment Rights Act 1996.
3. The central issue in the case is whether the Claimant worked under a contract of
employment under section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 from either 1 May 2014
or alternatively from 1 July 2017. Both counsel agreed that in answering this question
Case No: 22305397/2021
2
I need to have regard to: the true agreement between the parties, whether there was
mutuality of obligation, whether the degree of control by the Respondent was sufficient
to amount to a relationship of employment; and whether the other provisions of the
contract are consistent with a contract of employment. It was accepted that the
Claimant at all times agreed to provide and in fact provided personal service.
4. If the Claimant is an employee, I have to consider whether on 31 May 2021 she was
dismissed within the meaning in either section 95(1)(a) or 95(1)(b) Employment Rights
Act 1996 and whether the dismissal was unfair within the meaning set out in section
98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. It was agreed between the parties that the reason
for any such dismissal was redundancy.
5. I also may have to consider the effect of section 138 Employment Rights Act 1996 on
any entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment.
6. These issues were set out in a list of issues provided by Mr Arnold and agreed following
minor amendment by Mr Sangha.
7. The list of issues included consideration of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section
111 Employment Rights Act 1996 to consider a claim of unfair dismissal. Given the
date of the alleged dismissal, the dates of Early Conciliation and the date of the Claim
form, the Tribunal has jurisdiction..
Evidence
8. The Tribunal was provided with an agreed final hearing bundle of 493 pages.
9. The Claimant gave evidence from a witness statement.
10. For the Respondent, Dr Elizabeth Gill (Deputy Chief Medical Officer), Dr Andrew
Hodson (Executive Medical Director), and Mr Adam Doyle (Chief Executive Officer)
gave evidence from witness statements.
11. Both Counsel produced written closing submissions, which were supplemented by oral
submissions.
Findings of fact
12. I was provided with a chronology agreed in all but one relatively minor respect.
13. From 1 May 2014, the Claimant was appointed Clinical Programme Lead –
Sustainability at Brighton and Hove Clinical Commissioning Group for an initial period
of six months, working one four hour session per week for 24 weeks per six months
To continue reading
Request your trial