Gunny Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Foundation Trust & Ors (Excluded employments) (Rev 1) [2018] UKEAT 0241_17_2802 (28 February 2018)

Gunny Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Foundation Trust & Ors (Excluded employments) (Rev 1) [2018] UKEAT 0241_17_2802 (28 February 2018)

The Claimant was not employed under a contract personally to do work within the meaning of section 83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010 because the group contract allowed an unfettered right of substitution among group members, did not impose personal service obligations on individuals, and the substance of the relationship was not one of employment in the extended sense.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0241_17_2802
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Dr Gunny; First Respondent: Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust; Second Respondent: HCA International Ltd; Third Respondent: Dr Chong; Fourth Respondent: Ms Hall
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Worker Definition, Sex Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation, Group Contracts, Personal Service Requirement
Employment Law Equality Law Employment Status Worker Definition Sex Discrimination Harassment Victimisation Group Contracts +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Gunny

Appellant/claimant

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust

First Respondent

HCA International Ltd

Second Respondent

Dr Chong

Third Respondent

Ms Hall

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was employed under a contract personally to do work within section 83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a group contract precludes employment status under the Equality Act
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its analysis of the substance of the relationship and relevant legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was not employed under a contract personally to do work within the meaning of section 83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010 because the group contract allowed an unfettered right of substitution among group members, did not impose personal service obligations on individuals, and the substance of the relationship was not one of employment in the extended sense.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.