Cases8001685/2024

Claimant v AMG Scot Ltd

16 April 2025Before Employment Judge W A MeiklejohnScotlandremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Breach of Contractnot determined

This preliminary hearing determined employment status only. The underlying breach of contract claim was not heard on merits. Claimant found to be a worker during two periods (Nov 2022-Oct 2023 and Nov 2023-Dec 2023) but not during a third period (Jan 2024-Sep 2024).

Breach of Contractnot determined

Claim for notice pay depends on worker status determination. Not yet heard on merits. Tribunal found claimant was a worker for part of the relevant period, allowing this claim to proceed for those periods only.

Holiday Paynot determined

Claim for accrued annual leave depends on worker status. Not yet heard on merits. Tribunal determined claimant was a worker from 1 Nov 2022 to 31 Oct 2023 and 1 Nov 2023 to 31 Dec 2023, but not from 1 Jan 2024 to 26 Sep 2024. Holiday pay claim can proceed for the two worker periods only.

Facts

Dr Fragoyannis was a GP who worked for AMG Scot Ltd operating GP practices. He worked at Alford Medical Practice from Nov 2022 to Oct 2023 under a 12-month locum agreement, then at High Valleyfield Surgery for two months (Nov-Dec 2023). From Jan 2024 to Sep 2024 he worked ad hoc shifts at various practices, declining some dates, while also working part-time as a salaried GP at Bucksburn from March 2024. He invoiced for his services and was paid without deduction of tax. He brought claims for breach of contract, notice pay and holiday pay, which required determination of his employment status.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was a 'worker' under s.230(3)(b) ERA during the first two periods (Nov 2022-Oct 2023 and Nov-Dec 2023) when he worked under fixed-term locum arrangements with personal performance obligations and the respondent was not his client/customer. However, during the third period (Jan-Sep 2024) when arrangements became ad hoc with no mutuality of obligation, no contract existed and he was not a worker. The claims can proceed only for the two worker periods.

Practical note

A locum GP can be a worker rather than self-employed when engaged on fixed-term arrangements requiring personal performance, but ad hoc arrangements without mutuality of obligation may fall outside worker status even if individual shifts involve subordination.

Legal authorities cited

Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak [2007] IRLR 560Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] ICR 1511Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof [2014] ICR 730Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd [2022] EAT 91Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 1 All ER 433Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.230(3)(b)

Case details

Case number
8001685/2024
Decision date
16 April 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
GP Locum
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister