Mr J Loftus v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust — 2025

This was a preliminary hearing to determine Mr Loftus's employment status in two periods of engagement with University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust. For the agency engagement from 21 September 2020 to 30 June 2023, the tribunal considered whether he was an employee or worker under section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996, or an employee under section 83 Equality Act 2010. For the direct engagement from 1 July 2023 to 14 December 2023, the tribunal considered whether he was an employee under section 230 ERA; the respondent had conceded worker status under section 230 ERA and employee status under section 83 EqA for that period.

For the agency period, the tribunal found there was no express contract between Mr Loftus and the respondent, and that express written arrangements existed involving Global, Workr, Crest and the respondent. It found the documents reflected the reality of a classic agency arrangement, even though Mr Loftus was substantially integrated into the respondent's healthcare service. Applying the authorities on implied contracts in agency arrangements, the tribunal concluded it was not necessary to imply any contract between Mr Loftus and the respondent. Because a contract was required for worker or employee status, he was not a worker or employee under the ERA and was not an employee under the EqA for that period.

For the direct engagement period, the tribunal noted the respondent's concessions on ERA worker status and EqA employee status. The remaining issue was whether Mr Loftus was an ERA employee. The tribunal found there was no mutuality of obligation: the respondent was not obliged to offer work and Mr Loftus was not obliged to accept it. References in Globe documentation, a later software-company email, and a mortgage-related letter were not treated as establishing a contract of employment with the respondent. The tribunal therefore held that no contract of employment existed for ERA purposes during the direct engagement period.

No remedy was awarded in this judgment. The decision was confined to employment status and did not determine the underlying substantive claims or any compensation.