Mrs N Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Limited — 2019

Mrs N Sejpal was a dentist who worked for Rodericks Dental Limited under successive associateship contracts from 2009, with the relevant agreement being the 20 January 2013 PDS Plus associateship contract. She began maternity leave in December 2018 as the Kensington practice was due to close, and at the outset of the hearing she formally withdrew her unfair dismissal claim. The remaining case proceeded as a preliminary issue on whether she was a 'worker' under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and in 'employment' under s.83 EqA 2010 for the purpose of her discrimination claims.

The tribunal reviewed the contractual terms and oral evidence in light of the authorities cited by the parties, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Carmichael, Autoclenz, Pimlico Plumbers and Market Investigations. It held that the relationship lacked the necessary mutuality of obligation, that the locum tenens clause gave the claimant a genuine right of substitution, that financial risk remained with her, and that the overall degree of control and integration pointed to self-employment rather than worker status. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's case that the written agreement was a sham or did not reflect the reality of the relationship.

On that basis, the tribunal found that Mrs Sejpal was not a worker and was not in employment for Equality Act purposes. Her claims of discrimination by reference to pregnancy and maternity and by reference to sex, together with associated claims, were dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.