Claimant v Dr M S Moughal
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing determined only employment status, identity of employer, fact and date of dismissal, and jurisdiction. The substantive unlawful deduction of wages claim (from end of April 2024) was not determined.
This preliminary hearing determined only employment status, identity of employer, fact and date of dismissal, and jurisdiction. The substantive TUPE failure to inform and consult claim was not determined.
This preliminary hearing determined that the claimant was an employee dismissed on 31 July 2024 and that the claim was in time, establishing jurisdiction. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined.
This preliminary hearing determined only employment status, identity of employer, fact and date of dismissal, and jurisdiction. The substantive automatic unfair dismissal claim (for a reason connected to a TUPE transfer) was not determined.
Facts
The claimant, a nurse, worked remotely 16 hours per week from September 2020 for a GP practice partnership, managing chronic disease registers and occasionally attending vaccination and smear clinics in Glasgow. She was paid via payroll with pension contributions and tax deducted. The partnership dissolved amid a dispute between the two GP partners, one of whom was the claimant's brother. The claimant's work stopped after April 2024 following an ambiguous conversation, and she received her P45 on 31 July 2024. The second respondent partner suspected the employment was a sham but conducted no investigation while the claimant was employed.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was an employee of the partnership (and both partners individually under the Partnership Act 1890) based on the Ready Mixed Concrete test: there was a work-wage bargain with personal service, sufficient managerial control, and all other factors (payroll, tax, integration, no substitution, no business risk) supported employment status. Dismissal occurred on 31 July 2024 when the P45 was received, as prior communications were ambiguous. The claim filed on 18 October 2024 was in time.
Practical note
In small businesses without HR departments or written contracts, tribunals will scrutinise the substance of the working relationship; partners cannot escape liability for employment obligations by claiming ignorance of an arrangement authorised by a practice manager acting within ostensible authority.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001709/2024
- Decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Dr M S Moughal
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Practice Nurse
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor