Case 1302699/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Gursimran Bains v Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 1302699/2024
- Decision date
- 15 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdin Appearances
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gursimran Bains
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the only remaining complaint was constructive unfair dismissal against Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. Earlier claims against individual respondents and previous discrimination complaints had been withdrawn. The preliminary issue was whether the Claimant was an employee or a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was a worker under s230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It relied in particular on the absence of guaranteed work, the Claimant's ability to choose whether to accept shifts, the absence of mutuality of obligation, and terms relating to holiday, sick pay, and cover for shifts. It noted that references to employment or employee status in documents were not determinative.
Because the Claimant was found to be a worker rather than an employee, the Tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim did not have reasonable prospects of success under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. As it was the only remaining claim, it was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes the only remaining claim as constructive unfair dismissal. It was struck out after the Tribunal found the Claimant was a worker, not an employee, and that the unfair dismissal claim did not have reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Carmichael v National Power Ltd
- mutuality of obligation
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.