Miss L Ryan v The Belvedere Clinic Ltd and 3 others — 2024

At a CVP hearing in London South on 30 and 31 May 2024, Employment Judge T Perry dealt with preliminary issues about the Claimant's status and the identity of her employer. Miss L Ryan said she had been introduced to the clinic in early 2020, agreed on 23 February 2020 to work as a patient co-ordinator at £10 an hour, later reduced to £7, and had no written contract. She completed timesheets and invoices addressed to Cosmetic Surgery London Ltd, wore a prescribed uniform, clocked in and out, and worked on days made available by the clinic.

Applying the multiple-factor approach, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Autoclenz and Uber BV v Aslam, the Tribunal found personal service, a close degree of control over the work, and enough mutuality of obligation to conclude that the Claimant was both an employee for ERA purposes and a worker. It gave limited weight to the invoice and tax arrangements because those were imposed by the clinic and were not treated as inconsistent with status on these facts.

On the correct respondent issue, the Tribunal accepted that Belvedere Clinic Ltd had ceased trading, that Belvedere Private Clinic Ltd's role was unclear, and that The Pemberton Laser Cosmetic Surgery Clinic Limited was the CQC-registered hospital operator. It found that Cosmetic Surgery London Limited was in effect the operating company, that the strongest connection with the Claimant's engagement was with that company, and that it paid her and appeared on the timesheets and invoices. The claims against the other three respondents were dismissed, and the claims were listed to continue against Cosmetic Surgery London Limited only on 18, 19 and 20 June 2025. The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying claims at this hearing.