Case 1600888/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr H Dahwa v Hywel Dda University Local Health Board — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600888/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr H Dahwa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr H Dahwa was engaged by Hywel Dda University Local Health Board as a medical bank worker from March 2021. The tribunal accepted that she was a worker when on each assignment, but found that the arrangement was assignment-specific and that there was no overarching or umbrella contract between assignments. It found no mutuality of obligation between shifts, and held that the Claimant was free to refuse work and did in fact stop working after her last shift on 30 July 2021.
The tribunal found that the Claimant received holiday pay through the hourly rate and that the relevant terms referred to an hourly rate inclusive of annual leave payment at 12.07%. It noted that the Claimant had later argued that holiday pay had been underpaid, relying on authorities including Harpur Trust v Brazel and Smith v Pimlico Plumbers, but held that those points did not assist because the complaints were out of time. The tribunal also found that the Claimant knew, at the latest by September 2021, how her holiday pay had been calculated.
On limitation, the tribunal held that any WTR complaint should have been brought within three months of the end of the relevant assignment, and in particular within three months of the last assignment on 30 July 2021. It rejected the argument that the engagement terminated only when she was removed from the bank list on 31 December 2023. The alternative unlawful deduction claim was also dismissed: the tribunal held that the last relevant deduction was in September 2021, and that s.23(4A) ERA 1996 meant it had no jurisdiction to consider deductions more than two years before the ET1 lodged on 21 March 2024.
No monetary award was made. The claim to amend to add a breach of contract complaint was refused at the hearing and did not form part of the final judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint was not presented within time under reg 30(2) WTR 1998 and it was reasonably practicable to do so earlier. The tribunal found the Claimant's last assignment ended on 30 July 2021 and did not accept that the engagement continued to 31 December 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and, in any event, s.23(4A) ERA 1996 barred complaints about deductions made more than two years before the ET1. The tribunal held the relevant deductions were in 2021 and the claim was presented on 21 March 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- reg 30(2) WTR 1998
- s.23(4A) ERA 1996
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority
- Carmichael v National Power plc
- Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie
- Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd
- Harpur Trust v Brazel
- Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew
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.