Bernadette Doherty First v Alexander Mann Solutions Limited Second Respondent: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Third Respondent: Giant Precision Contracts Limited Heard: by CVP — 2026

Bernadette Doherty worked on a temporary assignment for HMRC between 10 and 28 January 2025. The Tribunal found that she was not an employee of any respondent, was not a worker of Alexander Mann Solutions Limited, and was not employed by that company within section 83 of the Equality Act 2010. Alexander Mann Solutions was also not a principal within section 41. All claims against it were dismissed. Ms Doherty was a contract worker of HMRC and a worker of Giant Precision Contracts Limited, but she had no contract of employment with either of them. The Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract or wrongful dismissal complaint and dismissed it.

The Tribunal refused Ms Doherty's application, made on the first day of the final hearing, to add a complaint that her assignment ended because of something arising from disability. Applying the Selkent factors and the balance of injustice and hardship identified in Vaughan v Modality Partnership, it found that the proposed section 15 claim raised new factual and legal allegations, was made about 15 months after the alleged dismissal, and would have required the hearing to be adjourned. The prejudice to the respondents outweighed the prejudice caused by refusing the amendment.

The Tribunal also refused the Second and Third Respondents' application to strike out the remaining claims. Although Ms Doherty did not cross-examine their witnesses on the substantive issues, the Tribunal found that this followed her distress on the fourth day of the hearing and did not mean that the claim had not been actively pursued, had no reasonable prospect of success, or could no longer receive a fair hearing. The respondents' evidence was accepted where it was unchallenged.

The failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed as out of time. The Tribunal found that the primary time limit began on 29 January 2025 and rejected the argument that the alleged failures formed continuing conduct. The claim was about six weeks late against HMRC and two and a half weeks late against Giant. Ms Doherty had set out her intended claims in detail on 7 February and began ACAS early conciliation on 17 February, but gave little evidence explaining why she did not present the claim until 29 June. The Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time and did not decide whether she was disabled or whether reasonable adjustments had been required.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed on its merits. Ms Doherty initially received information referring to a £400 assignment rate, but on 3 January 2025 she accepted the PAYE option at £296.42 per day. Giant was responsible for paying her and paid £4,001.67 gross for 13.5 days, plus £601.83 gross holiday pay, subject to tax, employee National Insurance and a student loan deduction. The Tribunal found that the wages paid were not less than the wages properly payable and that she had not established a right to receive £400 per day. No monetary remedy was awarded.