Case 1301020/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Alana Davies v The Old Surgery Dental Practice Ltd and 3 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301020/2021
- Decision date
- 19 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Battisby
- Venue
- Birmingham remotely
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Miss Alana Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Alana Davies brought claims against The Old Surgery Dental Practice Ltd and others including unfair dismissal, direct and indirect sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, victimisation, unpaid wages and unpaid notice pay. The hearing before Employment Judge Battisby was a preliminary issue on employment status. The tribunal found that she had entered a self-employed associate dentist agreement voluntarily, had negotiated some terms, worked under a BDA model agreement from 6 September 2018, and was not engaged on an employment contract.
The tribunal accepted that the written agreement and the reality of the relationship were aligned. It found the substitution and assignment provisions were genuine, that Miss Davies could work for other practices and did so, and that she paid her own tax and national insurance, held her own indemnity insurance, and carried financial risk in relation to failed treatment. The judge held that administrative arrangements, training days, scrubs, appointment scheduling and performance monitoring reflected the operation of a dental practice and regulatory requirements rather than employee-style control, and that Miss Davies retained complete clinical freedom.
Applying s230(1) and s230(3) ERA 1996 and s83(2) Equality Act 2010, the tribunal concluded that Miss Davies was neither an employee nor a limb (b) worker, and that the client or customer exception applied. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claims. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found Miss Davies was neither an employee nor a worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s83(2) Equality Act 2010; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s83(2) Equality Act 2010; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex dismissed with the other claims because the tribunal found there was no employment jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal made no merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages claim dismissed because the tribunal found Miss Davies was neither an employee nor a worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Judgment refers to unpaid notice pay; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found no employee or worker status. |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s230(1) ERA 1996
- s230(3) ERA 1996
- s83(2) Equality Act 2010
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Autoclenz
- Pimlico Plumbers substitution principles
- Carmichael mutuality of obligation
- Hall v Lorimer multifactorial approach
- Byrne Brothers client/customer exception
- Hospital Medical Group v Westwood
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.