Dr R Narayan v Community Based Care Health Ltd: 2500615/2017
| Judgment Date | 05 May 2020,21 March 2018 |
| Citation | 2500615/2017 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
RESERVED JUDGMENT Case Number: 2500615/2017
1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant Respondent
Dr R Narayan AND Community Based Care Health
Limited
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
Held at: North Shields On: 22 November 2017
Before: Employment Judge A M Buchanan
Appearances
For the Claimant: Ms J Callan of Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr R Gibson - Solicitor
JUDGMENT ON PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING
It is the judgment of the Tribunal that:-
1. The claimant was not an employee of the respondent as defined in section 230 of the
Employment Right Act 1996 and thus does not have the status to advance the claims of
unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal which are therefore struck out as having no
reasonable prospect of success pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule I to the
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (“the
2013 Rules”).
2. The claimant was a worker of the respondent as defined in section 230(3)(b) of the
1996 Act and thus does have the status to advance the claim in respect of unpaid
annual leave whether advanced pursuant to the Working Time Regulations 1998 or
pursuant to Part II of the 1996 Act.
RESERVED JUDGMENT Case Number: 2500615/2017
2
3. The claimant was an employee of the respondent as defined in section 83(2) of the
Equality Act 2010 and thus does have the status to advance the claims of sex and/or
race discrimination.
4. It is not appropriate to strike out the claims of sex and/or race discrimination on the
basis that they have no reasonable prospect of success pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of
Schedule I of the 20103 Rules.
5. A Deposit Order is made pursuant to Rule 39 of the 2013 Rules in respect of the
allegations of sex and/or race discrimination and that Order is issued separately.
6. A Private Preliminary hearing will be convened to make orders to bring the claims
allowed to proceed on for final hearing.
REASONS
Preliminary Matters
1 By a claim form filed on 15 June 2017 the claimant advanced claims to the
Tribunal of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, sex discrimination, breach of contract in
respect of notice pay and unpaid holiday pay.
2 By a response filed on 14 July 2017 the respondent denied liability to the
claimant and raised a jurisdictional preliminary matter. The jurisdictional matter pleaded
was that the claimant was a self-employed person and as a result the Tribunal lacked
jurisdiction to advance any of the claims she sought to advance.
3 On 22 September 2017 the matter came before Employment Judge Garnon on a
private preliminary hearing and orders made on that day resulted in the claim being set
down for a public preliminary hearing in order to determine these matters:
3.1 Whether the claimant has the status to bring any of the claims in her claim form
before an Employment Tribunal and, to the extent she does not, whether such claims
should be struck out.
3.2 If the claimant has status to advance any one or more of the claims she seeks to
advance, whether any such claim or claims should be struck out, or a deposit ordered
as a pre-condition of her pursuing it, on the basis that it has no, or only little, reasonable
prospect of success.
5 Accordingly a public preliminary hearing came before me in order to determine
those two matters which engage Rules 37(1)(a) of Schedule I to the Employment
Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (Strike Out) and Rule
39 of the 2013 Rules (Deposit Order).
The hearing
6 At the hearing I heard evidence from the claimant who was cross examined at
length. I asked some questions of my own in order to clarify my understanding of certain
aspects of the case. For the respondent I heard evidence from Julie Anne Mitchell who
is Chief Executive of the respondent company. This witness was cross examined at
length and again I asked some questions of my own in order to clarify my understanding
of her evidence.
To continue reading
Request your trial