Case 2401461/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Healthcare Headhunters Limited trading as Lastminute Care & Nursing — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401461/2021
- 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 reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Liverpool before Employment Judge Cookson with Mr B Rowen and Mr R Cunningham, found unanimously that Ms Holmes was a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but not an employee. On that basis, it held that it had no jurisdiction over the claims brought under s44 and s103A, and those claims were dismissed.
The tribunal did uphold one claim under s47B ERA 1996. It found that on 22 January 2021 Ms Holmes had her shift terminated, was asked to leave the premises immediately, and was not allocated any further shifts, and that this amounted to a detriment on the ground that she had made a qualifying protected disclosure.
The judgment also states that Ms Holmes's other s47B detriment claims were not upheld and were dismissed. The written record does not set out any monetary remedy or award.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 because the tribunal found the claimant was a worker but not an employee and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim under s103A ERA 1996 dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was a worker but not an employee and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the claimant was subjected to a detriment under s47B ERA 1996 when, on 22 January 2021, her shift was terminated, she was asked to leave the premises immediately, and she was not allocated any further shifts. The judgment also states that her other s47B detriment claims were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
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.