Case 3319977/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Dr K Giannopoulos v NC Healthcare Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319977/2019
- Decision date
- 17 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr K Giannopoulos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Giannopoulos, a doctor supplied by NC Healthcare Ltd for locum assignments at Weston General Hospital and South Tyneside Hospital, brought claims including less favourable treatment as a fixed-term employee, breach of contract in respect of notice, and unauthorised deductions from wages. The hearing on 14 July 2020 was listed to determine employment status. The tribunal noted that the respondent’s documents described the claimant as an independent contractor, that the claimant could refuse assignments, that there was no substitution clause, and that he was paid through the umbrella company Alpha Republic, which invoiced the respondent.
Applying the employment-status authorities it cited, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Autoclenz, Dakin and Bates van Winkelhof, the tribunal found there was no overarching contract of employment when the claimant was not on assignment because there was no mutuality of obligation. It also found that during assignments the respondent did not control how he performed the work: the hospital gave the rota, directed the work and provided supervision and clinical oversight. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent.
The tribunal then considered worker status under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted there was an express contract and personal service, but concluded that the claimant provided his services as part of his own profession, so the respondent was his client or customer rather than a business undertaking carrying on his profession. The fact that the respondent made a fee from the work did not change that analysis. The tribunal therefore found that he was not a limb (b) worker.
Because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent, all three claims were dismissed. The tribunal expressly said it did not decide whether any money might be owed under the terms of the contract between the parties, because that was not a matter it could determine on these findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed-term employee regulations | Complaint of less favourable treatment of a fixed-term employee in respect of on-call working requirements. Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint in respect of notice. Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent and therefore could not bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay for periods when the claimant said he was available for work but turned away, and for periods said by the respondent to be breaks but which he said were on-call or working. Dismissed because the tribunal found he was not a worker of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- Dakin v Brighton Marina Residential Management Company Ltd
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP
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.