Mrs N Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd: 2201408/2019
| Judgment Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Published date | 04 December 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No: 2201408/2019
10.7 Reserved Judgment with reasons – rule 62 1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mrs N Sejpal
Respondent: Rodericks Dental Limited
Heard at: London Central On: 10 & 11 December 2019
5 February 2020
Before: Employment Judge Professor A C Neal
Representation
Claimant: Mr C Milsom (Counsel)
First Respondent: Ms J Furley (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that the Claimant was not a “worker” and
she was not in “employment”. Her claims alleging discrimination by
reference to the protected characteristics of (1) pregnancy and maternity
and/or (2) sex together with all associated claims are dismissed.
Case No: 2201408/2019
10.7 Reserved Judgment with reasons – rule 62 2
REASONS
THE CLAIMS AND CONDUCT OF THE HEARING
1. By a Claim Form ET1 presented on 16 April 2019 the Claimant made claims
against three Respondents: (1) Rodericks Dental Limited (being the corrected
name of the First Respondent); (2) NHS Business Services Authority – State of
Financial Entitlements; and (3) NHS BSA.
2. Those claims originally alleged (1) unfair dismissal; (2) discrimination by
reference to pregnancy or maternity; (3) entitlement to a redundancy payment; (4)
entitlement to unpaid notice money; (5) entitlement to unpaid holiday money; and
(6) other financial payments due. The ET1 was coded “UDL/MAT/BOC/WTR(A/L)”.
3. Following correspondence between the parties and the Tribunal
Employment Judge Glennie confirmed to the parties by letter dated 20 September
2019 that he had dismissed the claims against NHS Business Services Authority
– State of Financial Entitlements and NHS BSA upon withdrawal by the Claimant.
A formal judgment recording dismissal of the claims against those two
Respondents was sent to the parties on 7 November 2019.
4. Further Particulars of the outstanding claims made against the remaining
Respondent – Rodericks Dental Limited – (described as “Further and Better
Particulars of Claim”) were served by solicitors acting for the Claimant on 1 October
2019. Those particulars made clear that the claims brought against the remaining
Respondent are limited to: (1) discrimination by reference to the protected
characteristic of pregnancy and maternity; and/or (2) discrimination by reference
to the protected characteristic of sex. As the Claimant’s representative has
expressed it in his closing “Submissions for the Claimant”, “In a nutshell it is said
that the Claimant was dismissed because of her pregnancy whereas others were
redeployed”.
5. By notice given to the parties on 20 September 2019 Employment Judge
Glennie directed that there should be a Preliminary Hearing to determine a
preliminary issue. That issue was “to determine whether the Claimant was an
employee or worker or neither of these”.
6. In the wake of service by the Claimant of Further Particulars of her claim, and
then following discussion and clarification of issues between counsel for the
respective parties and the Employment Judge at the outset of this hearing, the
scope of that preliminary issue was limited by agreement to the question of
whether or not the Claimant was a “worker” (and, thus, in “employment”). In
particular, an earlier assertion that the Claimant was to be regarded as an
“employee” by reference to Section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
was not pursued after she indicated at the start of this hearing that she did not
seek to continue with her initial claim alleging unfair dismissal.
7. At the outset of the hearing it was made clear on behalf of the Claimant that
she wished formally to withdraw her claim alleging unfair dismissal
To continue reading
Request your trial