Ms A Moughal v Dr M S Moughal and 3 others — 2024

The tribunal found that Ms A Moughal was re-engaged in September 2020 on an oral arrangement with Greenlaw Medical Practice, through Sandra Grant, to work 16 hours a week as a practice nurse, mostly remotely on chronic disease work with occasional clinic attendance. It accepted that she was paid through payroll at £13.86 per hour, with tax, national insurance and pension contributions handled by the practice, and that the absence of a written contract was an oversight. The tribunal preferred the evidence of Ms Moughal, Sandra Grant and Dr Moughal on how the work was carried out, including the use of a spreadsheet prepared from EMIS data and the claimant’s personal performance of the work.

Applying Ready Mixed Concrete, the tribunal held that the claimant provided personal service, was subject to sufficient control through Sandra Grant as line manager, and was integrated into the practice. It found that she was an employee within section 230(1) and (2) ERA 1996 and therefore a worker under section 230(3)(a). The employer was the fourth respondent partnership, and the first and second respondents were also bound as partners under section 6 of the Partnership Act 1890. The tribunal further found that Sandra Grant had actual and ostensible authority to engage the claimant, with alternative partnership and waiver/adoption reasons supporting that conclusion.

On termination, the tribunal found that the late-April 2024 conversation in which the first respondent told the claimant to stop working and stop logging in was objectively ambiguous and did not clearly communicate dismissal. The earliest unambiguous communication was receipt of the P45 on 31 July 2024, so the dismissal date was 31 July 2024. Because early conciliation ran from 9 August to 20 September 2024 for the first, second and fourth respondents, and from 14 October to 16 October 2024 for the third respondent, the ET1 received on 18 October 2024 was in time and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaints. This judgment resolved those preliminary issues only and did not determine the merits of the unlawful deduction, TUPE or unfair dismissal claims.