Case 1600811/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Giannopoulos v Athona Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600811/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Giannopoulos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Giannopoulos worked as a locum doctor at Prince Charles Hospital from 9 March 2019 under terms of engagement stating that he was working via Elite Management Consultancy Limited and that the arrangement was governed by the Agency Worker Regulations rather than the Fixed Term Employees Regulations. The tribunal found that the hospital, not the Respondent, determined the duration of the placement and the rota, and that the Claimant was working under the supervision and direction of Cwm Taf UHB. It therefore held that there was no fixed term contract of employment between the Claimant and Athona Limited.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The tribunal held that no fixed term contract of employment existed between the Claimant and the Respondent, and in any event any comparison would have been with permanent employees of Cwm Taf UHB rather than the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was for one week's notice pay on termination. The tribunal found the Claimant had not shown a contract of employment with the Respondent or the required one month of continuous employment, and in any event clause 9.2.4 allowed termination without notice where the hirer was dissatisfied and had terminated the assignment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Regulation 4(1) AWR 2010
- Regulation 3(1) FTE Regulations 2002
- Section 86 ERA 1996
- Regulation 3(3) FTE Regulations 2002
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.