Wasson v Eastern Health and Social Services Board & Anor [2005] NIFET 116_01 (25 April 2005)

Wasson v Eastern Health and Social Services Board & Anor [2005] NIFET 116_01 (25 April 2005)

The claimant was not a contract worker as defined by Article 20 because he could not be employed by himself as a sole practitioner, and there was no employment relationship with the first respondent. The first respondent did not have power to confer a qualification within the meaning of Article 25, as inclusion on the Medical List was not a qualification needed for or facilitating the claimant's occupation.

Citation
[2005] NIFET 116_01
Parties
Claimant: Dr C Wasson; First Respondent: Eastern Health and Social Services Board; Second Respondent: General Medical Council
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
25 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Pre Hearing Review / Preliminary Determination of Substantive Issues
Outcome
claims under Articles 20 and 25 dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Worker Status, Qualification Conferral, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Discrimination Law Contract Worker Status Qualification Conferral Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr C Wasson

Claimant

Eastern Health and Social Services Board

First Respondent

General Medical Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Pre Hearing Review / Preliminary Determination of Substantive Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a contract worker under Article 20 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent had power to confer a qualification under Article 25 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not a contract worker as defined by Article 20 because he could not be employed by himself as a sole practitioner, and there was no employment relationship with the first respondent. The first respondent did not have power to confer a qualification within the meaning of Article 25, as inclusion on the Medical List was not a qualification needed for or facilitating the claimant's occupation.

Court Disposition

claims under Articles 20 and 25 dismissed