Claimant v Infinity Dental Care Ltd and others — 2020

The tribunal heard a remote paper hearing to determine whether Dr Simpson was in employment, alternatively a contract worker, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and whether there had been a contractual pay deduction issue. It set out the statutory definitions in Equality Act 2010 sections 83 and 41 and referred to Autoclenz v Belcher, Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith, and Community Dental Centres v Sultan-Darmon when assessing whether the written Associate Agreement reflected the true relationship between the parties.

Having heard evidence from Dr Simpson and Dr Chadha, the tribunal found that the Associate Agreement was a genuine contract for services. It placed weight on clause 37 dealing with locums, concluding that it gave Dr Simpson an unfettered right to appoint a substitute and was inconsistent with personal service. The tribunal accepted that there were elements of control over diary management, holidays, training, UDA targets, and practice branding, but characterised these as administrative necessities of running a busy dental practice rather than matters that altered the fundamental nature of the contract.

On that basis, the tribunal held that Dr Simpson was not in employment for Equality Act purposes and was not a contract worker. The Equality Act complaints were therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment does not set out separate factual findings on the underlying race and sex allegations because the status point disposed of those complaints.

Separately, the tribunal dealt with a £1,000 retention from Dr Simpson's fees at the end of the relationship. It found there was no clause in the Agreement entitling the Respondents to retain the sum in anticipation of possible patient refunds, and Mr Chadha accepted that no sums were in fact owing when the deduction was made. The breach of contract claim therefore succeeded in the sum of £1,000.