Case 2301668/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Whitfield v Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301668/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harley
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr Anderson, Mr Rodgers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Whitfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Whitfield was not an employee of Guys and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust at the relevant time. On that basis, her unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine it. Her claim for automatic unfair dismissal was also dismissed for the same jurisdictional reason.
The tribunal further held that her complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded and dismissed it. Her claim for equal treatment under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 was withdrawn and dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent at the relevant time, so it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim dismissed for the same reason: the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee at the relevant time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Agency worker regulations | Claim for equal treatment under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.