Case 1601509/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Millington v Hywel Dda University Local Health Board — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601509/2021
- Decision date
- 13 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Panel members
- Mrs M Walters, Mr C Lovell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr M Millington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr M Millington had been employed by Hywel Dda University Local Health Board as a locum consultant psychiatrist in CAMHS under successive fixed-term contracts from 13 May 2013. The tribunal accepted that there were longstanding recruitment difficulties for consultant psychiatrists in the service and that the respondent sought to recruit a substantive consultant through the statutory process under the NHS (Appointment of Consultants) (Wales) Regulations 1996. It also found that the claimant had at one stage proposed wording purporting to waive employment rights, but held that any such waiver had no legal basis.
On the regulation 6 detriment complaint, the tribunal held that the failure to provide a permanent contract could amount to a detriment and that the complaint was presented in time. However, it found that the respondent's reason for not providing a permanent contract was its belief that it had to comply with the consultant appointment regulations, rather than any ground falling within regulation 6(3). It rejected the submission that the late April 2021 response supported an inference of unlawful motive, accepting the respondent's explanation that the delay was caused by Covid-19 pressures.
On the regulation 9 declaration claim, the tribunal held that the relevant date for assessing objective justification was 14 July 2021, being the last renewal before the ET1 was presented, not the later 2022 renewal suggested by the claimant. Applying the authorities it cited, including Kücük, Adeneler and Duncombe, it accepted two legitimate aims: compliance with the consultant appointment regulations and the proposed reorganisation of CAMHS to create a more resilient service. It found that keeping the claimant on a fixed-term locum contract was a proportionate means of achieving those aims because the claimant was not prepared to apply for the full-time, largely on-site substantive post required by the service. Both claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The detriment complaint was held to be in time, but it failed because the tribunal found the respondent's reason for not issuing a permanent contract was compliance with the consultant appointment regulations, not a ground within regulation 6(3). The tribunal accepted the delay in responding to the April 2021 request was due to Covid-19 pressures and declined to draw an inference from it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The tribunal held the relevant date for objective justification was 14 July 2021, the last renewal before the ET1. It found the fixed-term contract was objectively justified by compliance with the NHS (Appointment of Consultants) (Wales) Regulations 1996 and by the planned reorganisation of CAMHS, and it rejected the claimant's argument that the later renewal date in 2022 should be used. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
- Adeneler v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos
- Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
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.