Case 2402511/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Hameed v Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402511/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rhodes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr M Hameed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was not engaged under a contract of employment within the meaning of s230(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. In the alternative, it found that the claimant had not been continuously employed for at least two years ending with the effective date of termination, so did not meet the qualifying period under s108(1) ERA.
On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint. It also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim under Article 3 Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, because the claimant was not engaged under a contract of employment. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found not well founded and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction: the claimant was not engaged under a contract of employment and, alternatively, lacked the qualifying period of continuous employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction under Article 3 Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, as the claimant was not engaged under a contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s230(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s108(1) ERA
- Article 3 Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.