Case 2203692/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dillan Egan v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203692/2021
- Decision date
- 2 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Members
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr R Baber, Ms S Brazier
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dillan Egan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was engaged by Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust as a Band 6 physiotherapist under a temporary employment contract starting on 17 March 2021. The written contract gave an end date of 5 June 2021, but the tribunal found that the locum post had been funded only until 30 April 2021 to cover the period before a substantive Band 6 physiotherapist, Ms Aitcheson, started in early May 2021.
The respondent admitted that it had breached the contract by not giving written notice of early termination. The tribunal held that clause 31 permitted termination during the fixed term on statutory minimum notice, which was one week under section 86 ERA 1996. Applying Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd and MacKenzie v AA Ltd, the tribunal assessed wrongful dismissal damages on the basis that the respondent would have taken the least burdensome lawful option, so the claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay rather than five weeks.
The tribunal accepted evidence from Mr Still and Ms Newey that they believed from the outset that the claimant's engagement ended on 30 April 2021, and that Mr Still told the claimant at induction, and again by 29 April 2021 at the latest, that his employment would end on 30 April. The tribunal found that a later locum role beginning on 10 May 2021 was a different role with different funding, although the claimant was discussed as a possible candidate for it.
The automatic unfair dismissal claims under the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 and the alternative Fixed-Term Employees Regulations 2002 were dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the dismissal was because the claimant had asserted or proposed to assert rights relating to sick pay, accompaniment at meetings, agency worker rights, fixed-term worker rights, or qualifying-period rights. It found that the only reason for termination was that the respondent believed the claimant had been appointed only until 30 April 2021 and that the role had funding only until that date.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The respondent admitted breach of contract by failing to give written notice. The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay, but no monetary figure was stated in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | Automatic unfair dismissal complaints under regulation 17 of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 were dismissed because the tribunal found the dismissal reason was not any protected reason under those Regulations. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The alternative automatic unfair dismissal complaints under regulation 6 of the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 were dismissed on the same reasoning. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Regs 17(1)-(3)(a)(iv) Agency Worker Regulations 2010
- Regs 17(1)-(3)(a)(v) Agency Worker Regulations 2010
- Regs 17(1)-(3)(a)(vi) Agency Worker Regulations 2010
- Regs 17(1)-3(b) Agency Worker Regulations 2010
- Regs 6(1)-(3)(a)(iv)-(vi) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
- Regs 6(1)-3(b) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd
- MacKenzie v AA Ltd
- s.86 ERA 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.
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.