Case 2200223/2017 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2017
- Case reference
- 2200223/2017
- Decision date
- 28 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Ayre sitting alone at London Central on 14 and 15 June 2017 to determine threshold issues in claims brought by Mr S Ibrahim, an Arabic-language interpreter engaged by HCA International Limited on its 'Bank'. The Tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent: he had signed bank membership documentation stating there was no mutuality of obligation, he had selected 'Temporary Staff' rather than 'Employee' on a confidentiality agreement, and the wider factual matrix was consistent with worker rather than employee status (the respondent conceded worker status only).
The Tribunal held that the sex discrimination complaint, which related to an incident on 8 June 2014, was presented significantly out of time, and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis given the length of the delay, the absence of a cogent explanation for it, and the prejudice to the respondent. It also found that the grievances of 15 and 22 March 2016 did not amount to protected disclosures: complaints about false rumours of breach of patient confidentiality were not disclosures of information tending to show a breach of a legal obligation or a miscarriage of justice, and in any event the disclosures were not made in the public interest but to clear the claimant's name.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success, there being no evidence that the respondent had withheld sums due. As the parties had agreed that adverse findings on these preliminary issues would leave no substantive issues outstanding, the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent (the respondent conceded only worker status). As a result the unfair dismissal claim could not proceed and was dismissed along with the other substantive claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed as a consequence of the finding that the claimant was not an employee; the claim form had pleaded wrongful dismissal but it fell away with the other claims when the tribunal concluded there were no remaining substantive issues. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as part of the overall conclusion that there were no remaining substantive issues once employee status, the protected disclosure issues, the limitation point on sex discrimination, and the wages claim had been resolved against the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal held that the grievances of 15 and 22 March 2016 did not amount to protected disclosures: complaining of false rumours was not a disclosure of information tending to show a breach of a legal obligation or miscarriage of justice, and in any event the disclosures were not made in the public interest but to clear the claimant's name. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Presented outside the primary limitation period (the incident was on 8 June 2014; proceedings issued January 2017). The Tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis, citing the significant delay, lack of cogent reason for it, and prejudice to the respondent. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) v Nurmohamed [2017] EWCA Civ 979
- Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.