Suhail v Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals & Anor (Practice and Procedure: Review) [2015] UKEAT 0536_13_1310 (13 October 2015)

Suhail v Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals & Anor (Practice and Procedure: Review) [2015] UKEAT 0536_13_1310 (13 October 2015)

The finding that the Claimant had implicitly withdrawn the section 43K(1)(a) ERA argument against the First Respondent was mistaken and is revoked; the issue of whether the Claimant was a worker under section 43K(1)(a) ERA vis-à-vis the First Respondent requires factual investigation and must be remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal.

Citation
[2015] UKEAT 0536_13_1310
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Dr Mohammed Suhail; First Respondent: Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust; Second Respondent: Partnership of East London Co-operative (PELC)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application (employment Appeal Tribunal) / Post Judgment Review of EAT Decision
Outcome
Review application allowed in part; finding of implicit withdrawal revoked; issue remitted to Employment Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Whistleblowing, Jurisdiction, Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 43 K, Review of Judgment
Employment Law Labour Law Worker Status Whistleblowing Jurisdiction Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 43 K Review of Judgment

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Mohammed Suhail

Appellant/claimant

Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

First Respondent

Partnership of East London Co-operative (PELC)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application (employment Appeal Tribunal) / Post Judgment Review of EAT Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant implicitly withdrew the section 43K(1)(a) ERA argument against the First Respondent
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was a worker under the extended definition in section 43K(1)(a) ERA vis-à-vis the First Respondent
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The finding that the Claimant had implicitly withdrawn the section 43K(1)(a) ERA argument against the First Respondent was mistaken and is revoked; the issue of whether the Claimant was a worker under section 43K(1)(a) ERA vis-à-vis the First Respondent requires factual investigation and must be remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Review application allowed in part; finding of implicit withdrawal revoked; issue remitted to Employment Tribunal.

Orders

  • The finding of implicit withdrawal of the section 43K(1)(a) ERA argument against the First Respondent is revoked.
  • The issue of whether the Claimant was a worker under section 43K(1)(a) ERA vis-à-vis the First Respondent is remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal for determination.