Case 2308268/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Were v NHS Professionals Limited By CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2308268/2020
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Were
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 7 April 2022 before Employment Judge Martin. The claimant had re-registered with NHS Professionals in February 2020 and worked shifts until 19 June 2020, after which a DBS check revealed convictions for theft, robbery and common assault. The respondent stopped further bookings, the Risk Assessment Panel decided not to continue her registration, and the appeal was rejected on 12 August 2020.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the statutory continuous service requirement in section 108 ERA 1996 and section 212 ERA 1996. It found there was no global contract between assignments, that the claimant was employed only during each assignment, and that there had been a break of about 4.5 years between the first and second periods of work. The tribunal held that the claimant therefore did not have the two years' continuous employment needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and it struck that claim out. It also found the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time and said it would have dismissed it on that basis in any event.
The breach of contract claim was also held to be out of time and not well founded. For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal assumed for the purpose of the hearing that the claimant met the definition of disabled person, but it said the case turned on causation: the respondent withdrew registration because the claimant had not disclosed convictions and because of the nature of those convictions, not because of her mental health conditions. The tribunal referred to section 15 Equality Act 2010, section 6 Equality Act 2010, and Regulations 3 and 4 of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010, and concluded that the case had no reasonable prospect of success. It therefore struck out the disability discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' continuous service and also said the claim was out of time; it noted that, had qualifying service been present, it would still have dismissed the claim as out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the notice/breach of contract claim was not well founded and also out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal assumed for the purposes of the hearing that the claimant was disabled, but made no formal finding on disability status; it struck out the claim because it considered there was no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.212 ERA 1996
- reasonable practicability test
- r 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010, regs 3 and 4
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.