Case 2207350/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dillan Egan First v Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust Second Respondent: Globe Locums Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2207350/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bunting Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dillan Egan First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 16 and 17 April 2024 before Employment Judge Bunting, the tribunal decided whether the claimant had employee, worker, or agency-worker status in relation to Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust arising from physiotherapy work between May and August 2021. Applying s.230 ERA 1996, Ready Mixed Concrete, the Agency Worker Regulations 2010, and authorities including James v Greenwich LBC, Muschett, Sejpal, Pao On, and Cable & Wireless v Muscat, the tribunal held that the contemporaneous documents showed a contract with PB Grape/Globe rather than with the hospital.
On the facts, the tribunal accepted evidence that the claimant was introduced by Globe, signed a Grape/PB Grape contract and booking paperwork, was paid through the umbrella/payroll arrangement, and dealt with Globe and PB Grape about pay and the termination of the placement. It rejected the argument that the contract was a sham or that the claimant had been forced into it by economic duress, finding that he entered the arrangement willingly. The tribunal also found that the claimant's contemporaneous messages showed he was pleased to take the role and content for payment to be handled through Globe and the umbrella company.
The tribunal further rejected the submission that references in emails to extending 'his contract' showed direct employment, treating that wording as informal shorthand for extending cover. Because the claimant had not shown an employment relationship with the first respondent, the claims for automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, the s.1 ERA 1996 claim, unlawful deductions from wages, and the Equality Act 2010 discrimination complaint were dismissed. The judgment does not identify the protected characteristic relied on for the discrimination complaint. The separate claim against Globe Locums Ltd, described as 'civil fraud by deception', was also dismissed because the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction over it.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim dismissed at the preliminary status hearing because the claimant was found not to be an employee or worker of the first respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed on the same employment-status ground; the tribunal found no contract of employment with the first respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed on the same preliminary status ground. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claimant was not found to be a worker of the first respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Equality Act 2010 discrimination complaint dismissed on the same preliminary status ground; the judgment does not identify the protected characteristic relied on. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim against the second respondent described as 'civil fraud by deception' dismissed because the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction over it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.230 ERA 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Agency Worker Regulations 2010 regs 3 and 4
- Pao On v Lau Yiu Long economic duress
- Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd
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.