Ms G Ursuleanu v Vicars Cross Healthcare Limited and 5 others — 2024

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered potential liability and jurisdiction issues rather than the merits of the claimant's substantive claims. It found that Respondent 6 was an employee of Respondent 1, and that Respondent 4 met the Equality Act 2010 definition of employee or, alternatively, acted as an agent of Respondent 1. It therefore found Respondent 1 potentially liable for alleged acts of discrimination, harassment or victimisation by Respondents 4 and 6, and found Respondents 4 and 6 potentially personally liable under section 110 Equality Act 2010.

For the public interest disclosure detriment claim, the Tribunal found Respondent 4 potentially liable as a worker under the extended statutory definition, or as agent of Respondent 1, with Respondent 1 potentially liable for Respondent 4's actions. The Tribunal treated alleged disclosures to Respondent 4 on 25 February 2023 and 25 March 2023 as disclosures to the claimant's employer for the limited purpose of the preliminary issue, but stated that whether they were qualifying disclosures remained for the final hearing.

The Tribunal found Respondents 3 and 5 were purely volunteers and did not meet the relevant definitions under the Equality Act 2010 or Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that it had no jurisdiction to hear legal claims against them and struck them out as respondents.