Case 2401369/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Healthcare Headhunters Limited trading as Lastminute Care & Nursing — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401369/2021
- Decision date
- 17 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr B Rowen, Mr R Cunningham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cookson, sitting with Mr B Rowen and Mr R Cunningham, found that Ms Natasha Holmes was a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but not an employee. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claims brought under s44 and s103A for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal upheld a claim under s47B ERA 1996 in relation to the respondent cancelling Ms Holmes's scheduled shifts on 22 January 2021 and not allocating any further shifts after that date. It found that this amounted to a detriment on the ground that she had made a qualifying protected disclosure.
The tribunal dismissed Ms Holmes's other alleged detriments under s47B. The written decision does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim under s44 ERA 1996 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal found the claimant was a worker but not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under s103A ERA 1996 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim under s47B ERA 1996 upheld in respect of the cancellation of the claimant's scheduled shifts on 22 January 2021 and the failure to allocate any further shifts. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Other allegations of unlawful detriment under s47B ERA 1996 were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s44 ERA 1996
- s47B ERA 1996
- s103A ERA 1996
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.