The Hospital Medical Group Ltd v Westwood: CA 24 Jul 2012

The Hospital Medical Group argued that Dr Westwood was in business on his own account as a doctor, in which he had three customers, the NHS for his services as a general practitioner, the Albany Clinic for whom he did transgender work, and the Hospital Medical Group for whom he performed hair restoration surgery. The court considered the distinction between a ‘worker’ and an ’employee’.
Held: these were three separate businesses, quite unrelated to one another, and that he was a class (b) worker in relation to the Hospital Medical Group. Mauric Kay VP LJ said ‘Employment Tribunals spend a great deal of time taxonomising borderline cases in these areas.’ and ‘ I do not consider that there is a single key with which to unlock the words of the statute in every case. On the other hand, I agree with Langstaff J that his ‘integration’ test will often be appropriate, as it is here.’ Neither the Cotswold ‘integration’ test nor the Redcats ‘dominant purpose’ test purported to lay down a test of general application. They had been wise ‘not to lay down a more prescriptive approach which would gloss the words of the statute’.
Maurice Kay VP, Longmore, Toulson LJJ
[2013] ICR 415, [2012] IRLR 834, [2012] EWCA Civ 1005, [2012] WLR(D) 222
Bailii, WLRD
Employment Rights Act 1996 8230(3)
England and Wales
Appeal fromThe Hospital Medical Group Ltd v Westwood EAT 23-Sep-2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
Employment Judge correct in finding that the limb (b) worker exception (client or customer of Claimant) did not apply to the relationship between . .

Cited by:
CitedUK Mail Ltd v Creasey EAT 26-Sep-2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
As a matter of construction of the contract, the Claimant was not required to perform work personally since he had an unfettered right to send others, . .
CitedClyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof SC 21-May-2014
Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker
The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found . .
CitedMacalinden (T/A Charm Offensive) v Lazarov and Others EAT 17-Oct-2014
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employees or neither
The Employment Judge did not approach the question of whether the Claimants were . .
CitedHalawi v WDFG UK Ltd (T/A World Duty Free) CA 28-Oct-2014
The claimant said that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her religion. She worked as a beauty consultant at the airport, but through a limited company. Her airside pass had been withdrawn. She now appealed against rejection of her . .
CitedPimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith SC 13-Jun-2018
The parties disputed whether Mr Smith had been an employee of or worker with the company so as to bring associated rights into play. The contract required the worker to provide an alternate worker to cover if necessary.
Held: The company’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.463103