Mrs. W Lambley v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust — 2019

At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal determined employment status, strike-out, time-limit and deposit-order issues. The respondent conceded that the unfair dismissal complaint had been presented in time, so the tribunal did not need to decide that issue.

On employment status, the tribunal found that the claimant had been engaged on a bank basis under terms stating there was no obligation on the respondent to offer work and no obligation on the claimant to accept it. The tribunal found those terms reflected the reality of the arrangement, so there was no overarching mutuality of obligation between assignments. It therefore held that the claimant was a worker rather than an employee for the purposes of section 230(1) ERA 1996, and struck out the unfair dismissal claim because she lacked standing to bring it.

On the whistleblowing detriment complaints, the tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that all pleaded detriments were out of time at this stage, holding that the pleaded case was wide enough to include the decision communicated on 6 July 2018 and that questions about any earlier acts forming part of a continuing series were for the full hearing. The tribunal nevertheless held that the detriment complaints had little reasonable prospect of success because the claimant could not point to material linking the treatment complained of to her alleged protected disclosures, and she could not say whether Mr Davies knew of those disclosures when he made the relevant decision. It therefore made a deposit order of £15 in respect of each of three detriment complaints, £45 in total, as a condition of continuing them.