Case 3200328/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Henry v Smile Care South Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200328/2023
- Decision date
- 12 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Dr M Henry
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 3 July 2023, Employment Judge Norris considered Dr M Henry's claims for breach of contract and unlawful deductions from wages against Smile Care South Limited and Dr J Dhariwal. The issue was whether he was an employee or a 'limb b' worker so that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaints.
The Tribunal found that the April 2020 associate agreement required personal service, use of the practice's facilities, compliance with practice policies, UDA targets, holiday notice rules and post-termination restrictions. It accepted that patients were generally allocated by the practice, that the Claimant treated patients of Smile Care South rather than his own patients, that the practice presented him as part of Smile Dental Care, and that he had little realistic ability to provide a locum or to remove the mobility clause.
Applying the statutory definition in s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and Regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, with reference to the Supreme Court and EAT authorities on the realistic assessment of status, dependence, integration and client/customer status, the Tribunal held that Dr Henry was a limb b worker of Smile Care South Limited but was not an employee of either respondent and was not a worker of Dr Dhariwal. The claim was therefore dismissed against Dr Dhariwal, and a further hearing was to be listed if the parties did not settle. No remedy was determined at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal decided worker status and jurisdiction, not the merits of the breach of contract claim. It held that the claimant was a limb b worker of the first respondent and that the claim was dismissed against the second respondent. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal decided worker status and jurisdiction, not the merits of the unlawful deductions claim. It held that the claimant was a limb b worker of the first respondent and that the claim was dismissed against the second respondent. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996
- Regulation 2(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Byrne Brothers dependence test
- Cotswold Developments integration test
- client or customer test
- Autoclenz/Uber realistic approach to worker status
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.