Mrs J C Hill v Nursing and Midwifery Council and others: 3310586/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3310586/2023
Between
Mrs J C HillClaimantNursing and Midwifery Council and othersRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Gumbiti-ZimutoIn person for claimantMr J Lewis-Bale (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 28 August 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The employment tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaints against the first respondent pursuant to the Equality Act 2010. The complaints are therefore dismissed.[2]The claimant’s complaints against the fourth and fifth respondent made pursuant to sections 110 and 111 of the Equality Act 2010 have no reasonable prospect of success and are struck out.[3]The employment tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaints made against the respondents pursuant to the PartTime Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The complaints are therefore dismissed.
REASONS
[1]At a preliminary hearing on the 14 January 2025 the claim was set down for a preliminary hearing to consider issues of jurisdiction. The issues to be decided were the following:(i) Whether the claimant is prevented by section 120(7) of the Equality Act 2010 from bringing any of her complaints against the first respondent in the Employment Tribunal in respect of the outcome of her fitness to practice hearing when there is a statutory right of appeal in the High Court under Article 38 of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practice) Rules 2004? Page 2 of 14(ii) Whether the tribunal have jurisdiction to hear a complaint against the first respondent under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, when the first respondent was not the claimant’s employer within the meaning of those regulations?(iii) Whether the tribunal have jurisdiction under section 110 or 111 of the Equality Act 2010 to hear the complaints against the fourth and fifth respondents on the basis of an agent/principal relationship with the first respondent or instructing, causing or inducing a contravention of the Equality Act 2010?(iv) Whether the tribunal have jurisdiction to hear a complaint against the fourth and fifth respondent under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, when the fourth and fifth respondents were not the claimant’s employer within the meaning of those regulations?
Background
[2]The claimant is a midwife and is subject to regulation by the first respondent, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Until her dismissal, the claimant was employed by Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust).[3]The NMC is a statutory regulator pursuant to the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, with the principal functions of establishing standards of education, training, conduct and performance for nurses and midwives and ensuring the maintenance of those standards. The NMC is a qualification body for the purposes of sections 53 and 54 of the Equality Act 2010.[4]The fourth respondent is an independent practising barrister who presented the NMC's case at a hearing held by a Fitness to Practice Committee from 20 to 27 April 2023, at which four charges against the claimant were considered. The fifth respondent was the chairman of the Fitness to Practice Committee.[5]The claimant provided three useful documents, the first was a document described as a statement that set out the claimant’s submissions on the issues to be decided at this preliminary hearing. The claimant also provided two further documents both prompted by comments I made during the hearing to the claimant. The claimant produced two hand written documents which further elucidate the arguments that the claimant was making. The claimant was not asked to produce or required to produce these further hand written documents, she provided them on her own initiative and put them before me at the start of the hearings on the 2 nd and 3rd days of the preliminary hearing. They have been useful in explaining her case. The claimant’s case as set out in the grounds of claim Page 3 of 14[6]In the section headed “Background” the claimant the claimant sets out the context in which her complaints against the NMC are made. I set out extracts from the claimant's grounds of complaint:
Background
[1]I a vulnerable Claimant submitting to Employment Tribunal my discrimination claim against NMC by recording some examples of facts demonstrating that both its actions and inactions constitute acts of persistent and repetitive discrimination which continuous to date…[2]… the discriminatory acts and omissions have been taking place from 5 May 2020 to date and continue.[3]Although, I have formally brought allegations of ill treatment and grievances against NMC directly following a string of unresolved however previously timely raised concerns and issues these were not dealt with adequately or reasonably or at all at the time, being continuous conduct by NMC and my subsequent claim.[6]On 9 March 2020 I was dismissed from my role as a hospital midwife under pretext of "gross misconduct" following almost 22 years NHS service and referred to NMC by Emma Luhr Director of Midwifery, which she delayed until 22 May 2020.[7]… NMC carried out a hearing in my absence between 20 and 27 April 2023 and on 5 May 2023 NMC has publicly punished me with "4 months suspension"…[9]I remain affected to my detriment, and I am seriously prejudiced by NMC not examining all the evidence and all the facts carefully before they reached a decision as the profession regulator.[10]Although in my absence and no representative present for me, as a qualified midwife I was unlawfully deemed as impaired by a Fitness to Practice committee as a result of 20-27 April 2023 hearing. 7. In the section headed “NMC Procedure and Process” the claimant states that: 4…. the reason for my ill treatment was not related to my conduct and that NMC themselves did not have a genuine belief that I had committed misconduct neither NMC has no reasonable grounds for that belief, and NMC did not carry out a reasonable investigation after rejecting their first investigation outcome where NMC investigator reached a conclusion: "no case to answer". The claimant then concludes the section stating: 5. I therefore allege that Nin MC conduct of my referral and my subsequent ill treatment by NMC whilst applying a flawed process are acts of discrimination.” Page 4 of 14 8. The claimant then sets out a section headed “Breach of Natural Justice” in which she states that the NMC wrongly considered “my alleged “gross misconduct” as sufficiently serious to amount to a repudiatory breach of NMC Code thereby wrongly entitling it to set up a hearing” and then going to wrongly punish the claimant with a “4 months suspension”. 9. The claimant set out a section headed Direct race discrimination - s.13 EqA 2010. In this section the claimant sets out the following preamble: My personal experience is that NMC discriminates against me by treating my referral less favourable than the referrals I made. By its lack of impartiality and by failing to consider my referrer's bias, partiality and prejudice causing me detriment where the following conduct occurs: This is then followed by 38 sub-paragraphs in which the claimant refers to the conduct that she states amounts to less favourable treatment of her on the grounds of her Polish nationality. In each paragraph, except 1, she begins by stating “NMC disregards”, or “NMC ignores”, or “NMC disregards and ignores” before setting out an event that allegedly occurred during her employment with the Trust. 10.The connection with the NMC arising from each of these events is that the claimant contends that the NMC, to not discriminate against her in either proceeding with her referral to a hearing before the Practice Committee or the conclusions reached at the Hearing of the Practice Committee, should have taken the matter alleged into account.[11]The claim form then proceeds to set out the claimant’s complaint of indirect discrimination- s.19 EqA. At paragraph 13 is set out the Provision Criterion or Practice (PCP) relied upon by the claimant. Each of the alleged 6 PCP’s begins with the words “Fails to recognise” before a setting out an event carried out in course of the claimant’s employment by the Trust or an allegation of prejudice towards the claimant, an assertion that there was a lack of empathy towards the claimant and finally that “that if I was born in the UK and spoke English as my first language, I would have never been harassed by the NMC or the referrer”. Each of these matters alleges discrimination by the Trust and alleges that the NMC’s failed to recognise that discrimination when dealing with the claimant during the Practice Committee process.[12]The claimant then proceeds to set out a section headed “Unlawful Harassment Related to Race – s.26 EqA 2010”. The preamble to paragraph 17 reads as follows: Based on my personal experience NMC engage in unwanted conduct because I am Polish, by failing to recognise that referrer is prejudiced against me on the ground of my ethnicity: Page 5 of 14 This is then followed by 12 paragraphs in which the claimant set out the harassing conduct. In each of those paragraphs the claimant set out events or actions carried out during her employment by the Trust (going back to 2019), about which the claimant says that the NMC “fails to recognise”, or “disregards”. These complaints again are a complaint about the approach taken or conclusions reached by the NMC in considering the referral of the claimant during the Practice Committee process.[13]The claimant’s complaint of direct sex discrimination is set in paragraph 19 which begins with the following preamble: NMC process fails to recognise the referrer’s bias and prejudice causing me detriment when the following conduct occurs, which I have previously brought to NMC attention. The claimant then refers to events between 2016 and 2019 that occurred during her employment with the Trust. I understand these matters to relate to allegations contained in the referral that the claimant made against Linda Heppolette which the NMC considered to be an internal matter for the Trust rather than for the NMC to consider. This however is not a complaint about the way that a complaint the claimant’s referral relating to Linda Heppolette was considered by the NMC but appears to be a complaint about the way that the NMC dealt with the claimant while considering and deciding the outcome of her referral during the Practice Committee process.[14]In the section concerning “Unlawful Harassment Related to Sex – s.26 EqA 2010”, the preamble to section 21 is NMC had ignored my concerns about the referrer engaging in unwanted conduct related to my sex in the following conduct: The claimant then set out a series of events that took place during her employment with the Trust between 2018- 2019 of which the claimant says, NMC subsequent conduct of ignoring my testimony and my experience and the ordeal, continue to have the effect of violating my dignity and creating degrading, discriminatory, harassing, hostile humiliating, intimidating, and offensive environment for me as a registrant subjected to its flawed and unfair fit to practice process. The claimant’s complaint is about the way that the NMC dealt with her during the referral process dealt with by the Practice Committee.[15]From paragraph 23 of the Grounds of Complaint the claimant is making complaints about direct discrimination because of religion and belief, the claimant is Roman Catholic. The claimant relies on two incidents that occurred in 2019 during her employment with the Trust. In respect of those matters the claimant states at paragraph 24: Page 6 of 14 NMC process fails to recognise that my employer - the referrer's bias and prejudice is causing me a devastating detriment when the following conduct occurs, which I bring to NMC attention that I was subjected to the following conduct by referrer. The claimant states that she has made the NMC aware of this conduct, but they have ignored her concerns. The Practice Committee is the stage at which these matters would have been considered.[16]The claimant complains about harassment related to her religion or belief from paragraph 26. I made NMC aware that the referrer engaged in unwanted conduct related to my religion and believes. However, NMC put a blind eye whilst the referrer engaging in the following conduct. Then after setting out events that occurred in 2019 during her employment with the Trust the claimant states in paragraph 28: NMC has unlawfully subjected me to its fitness to practice ordeal, failing to recognise that the referrer's prejudice and discrimination is causing me detriment when the following conduct occurs, which I have brought to NMC attention. Both the Referrer's and NMC conduct had the purpose and effect of violating my dignity or creating degrading, discriminatory, harassing, hostile humiliating, intimidating, and offensive environment for me. This is because in all their decisions the NMC has failed to:a. acknowledge, recognise, understand, and respect my personal experience, perception and the ordeal and its impact.b. adequately and transparently investigate all the other circumstances of the case.c. conduct to have that devastating effect on me.[18]The claimant here complains about the NMC’s conduct of subjecting the claimant to “its fitness to Practice ordeal”, i.e. the Practice Committee process.[19]The claimant also complains about disability discrimination. The claimant makes a complaint of direct disability discrimination. In paragraph 35 of the grounds of complaint she lists 20 allegations of less favourable treatment. The allegations against the NMC again begin mainly using the formulation that the “NMC disregards” and then goes on to relay an event or incident alleged to have taken place during the claimant’s employment with the Trust or during the Trusts’ disciplinary proceedings against the claimant.[20]The last of the listed instances of less favourable treatment is the reference to “inappropriate inference against me from inconsistent and limited data.” This final point is a reference to the NMC’s conclusions on the referral against the claimant. Page 7 of 14[21]The claimant makes a claim of discrimination arising from disability pursuant to section 15 of the EqA. The claimant lists 21 instances of unfavourable treatment. The matters listed in paragraph 37 are acts or omissions by the NMC, save for 37 (j) which relates to the actions of the Trust.[22]At (d) of paragraph 37 the claimant states Neglecting the duty of care towards me - NMC vulnerable registrant with disabilities, by doing so, intentionally or through gross negligence. The claimant however does not explain the basis on which she alleges that there was negligence by the NMC.[23]In respect of the remaining matters listed in paragraph 37 the claimant is complaining about the way that the NMC dealt with her referral and the conclusions that the Fitness to Practice Committee arrived at.[24]In the claimant’s complaint about failing to make reasonable adjustments, the claimant lists 12 PCP’s they all relate to the way that the claimant’s referral was dealt with by the NMC. The adjustments that the claimant states should have been made by the NMC are listed at paragraph 44 and show that the claimant is in fact complaining about the way that the NMC dealt with her referral and the conclusions they came to during the Practice Committee process.[25]The claimant’s grounds of complaint at paragraphs 45 to 49 relate to the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The claimant seeks to make those complaints against each of the respondents. Equality Act 2010[26]Section 53 EqA 2010 provides that a qualifications body must not discriminate against or victimise a person. The duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to a qualifications body. Section 120 of the EqA 2010 provides that an employment tribunal has, subject to section 121, jurisdiction to determine a complaint relating to a contravention of Part 5 (work).[27]The NMC is a qualification body within the meaning of section 53 EqA 2010.The effect of the provisions is that the claimant can potentially bring a claim in the employment tribunal against the first respondent. This is subject to the provisions of section 120(7). Section 120(7) states: “Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a contravention of section 53 in so far as the act complained of may, by virtue of an enactment, be subject to an appeal or proceedings in the nature of an appeal.”[28]The Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (the "2001 Order") provides for the establishment of two committees: the Investigating Committee and the Fitness to Practice Committee. Page 8 of 14[29]Part V of the 2001 Order concerns the NMC's Fitness to Practice function. Article 29 states (so far as is relevant): (3) If, having considered an allegation, the Fitness to Practice Committee , as the case may be, concludes that it is well founded, it shall proceed in accordance with the remaining provisions of this article. (4) The Committee may undertake mediation of the matter, or decide that it is not appropriate to take any further action. (5) Where a case does not fall within paragraph (4), the Committee shall—(a) make an order directing the Registrar to strike the person concerned off the register (a “striking-off order”);(b) make an order directing the Registrar to suspend the registration of the person concerned for a specified period which shall not exceed one year (a “suspension order”);(c) make an order imposing conditions with which the person concerned must comply for a specified period which shall not exceed three years (a “conditions of practice order”); or(d) caution the person concerned and make an order directing the Registrar to annotate the register accordingly for a specified period which shall be not less than one year and not more than five years (a “caution order”). […] (9) The person concerned may appeal to the appropriate court against an order made under paragraph (5) and article 38 shall apply to the appeal. (10) Any such appeal must be brought before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which notice of the order or decision appealed against is served on the person concerned. Article 38 provides (so far as is relevant): "(1) An appeal from— (a) any order or decision of the Fitness to Practice Committee other than an interim order made under article 31, shall lie to the appropriate court; […] (2) In any appeal under this article the Council shall be the respondent. (3) The Court or sheriff may— (a) dismiss the appeal; (b) allow the appeal and quash the decision appealed against; (c) substitute for the decision appealed against any other decision the Fitness to Practice Committee or the Council, as the case may be, could have made; (d) remit the case to the Fitness to Practice Committee or Council, as the case may be, to be disposed of in accordance with the directions of the court or sheriff, and may make such order as to costs (or, in Scotland, expenses) as it, or he, as the case may be, thinks fit. (4) Subject to paragraph (5), in this article “the appropriate court” means— (a) in the case of a person whose registered address is (or, if he were registered, would be) in Scotland, the Court of Session; (b) in the case of a person whose registered address is (or, if he were registered, would be) in Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland; and Page 9 of 14 (c) in any other case, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales.[30]Where there is a statutory right of appeal against decisions of the qualifications body, that statutory procedure must be used instead of bringing an employment tribunal claim. The employment tribunal will retain jurisdiction in respect of any complaints about acts not covered by that right. The claimant’s submissions[31]The claimant produced a document dated 4 August 2025 that is headed “witness statement”, however the document presents the claimant’s responses to the questions posed for the preliminary
hearing.
[32]In respect of the question whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaints having regard to section 120(7) Equality Act 2010 the claimant argues that the employment tribunal can consider her complaints. Her statement includes the following points: 20. …I also allege that the discrimination extends to the NMC’s failure to investigate complaints that I had made against the maternity managers employed by the Trust. For example, I referred Respondent 2 and Respondent 3. …28. …Although there is a statutory right to appeal in the High Court under Article 38 of the Nursing and Midwifery Council Order 2001, NMC, to start with, prevents me from timely appealing by failure to serve me with its decision dated 2 May 2023. In fact NMC decision dated 2 May 2023 letter has been posted no until 14 June 2023, which was too late because the 28 days deadline to appeal to High Court has already passed.29. Section 120(7) of the Equality Act does not prevent me from bringing any of my complaint contained in my ET1 against the Respondent 1 in the Employment Tribunal because ET1 is not an appeal brought against NMC and 4 others with Employment Tribunal in August 2023 is not an appeal. Instead, it is my legitimate complaint about my regulatory ill and unlawful treatment over period by NMC and its 4 responsible individual persons as 4 Respondents. …[35]… the acts complained about are the subject to my ET1 action, which legitimate action is inherently not in the nature of appeal and is not intended to be an appeal in the first place. …[37]…Instead, my ET1 regulatory discrimination complaints is about continuous act which I complain about in detail and NMC’s persistent pattern over period therefore Employment Tribunal is an appropriate Court to hear and determine these kinds of complaints.[38]…my ET1 claims against NMC, and 4 individual Respondents originate from employment related professional registration referral made against me by Respondent 3 supported by Respondent 2 in 2020 and the manner in which NMC dealt with this referral Page 10 of 14 afterwards in connection to it both decisions and indecisions by NMC and its Fitness to Practice procedure.” 33.The claimant provided further written submissions on 5 August 2025 (dated 4 August 2005). In that document the claimant states: 7. … I clarify the meaning of point 10 isas follows: I claim NMC discriminated against me in the manner in which NMC persecuted referral made by Respondent 3 with assistance of Respondent2. Namely NMC Fitness to Practice proceedings against me were unlawful. … 15. Direct Race Discrimination NMC discriminates against me because I am Polish. NMC treats me less favourably than NMC treats Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 and other Trust’s managers, which Trust’s employees I complained about to NMC. They received NMC treatment on better terms than me. In fact, I was deprived from a fair process by NMC I was excluded and mistreated having received fitness to Practice procedure I was subjected to on much worse terms in a similar situation where they are not Polish. If I was born in the UK and spoke English as my first language like Linda Heppolette for example I would not have been treated in that way. For example the manner in which NMC, Respondent 2,(NMC witness 1) and respondent 3 (NMC witness 2) knowingly mistreated my mitigation and have failed to take any account of my mitigation. The claimant produced a further written submission on 6 August 2025 (dated 5 August 2025). In that document the claimant includes the following:10. Concluding question1: DETRIMENT Pursuant to section 53 (2)(c) quality Act 2010, I allege that NMC, my regulatory body had unlawfully subjected me to a detriment during its disciplinary process fitness to Practice between 5 May 2020 and 20- 27 April 2023, that had led to its decision dated 2 May 2023 and my suspension by Respondents 1, 4 and 5 with assistance from Respondents 2 and 3.11. NMC has subsequently applied disadvantaging me arrangement by depriving me ultimately from my right statutory to appeal in High Court, in first place. Consequently the right to appeal does not apply in these circumstances of events. Therefore Employment Tribunal has its jurisdiction to hear and decide this complaint also for this reason. The claimant set out further submissions on each of the head of claim that she relied on in this case, I do not consider it necessary to set them all out but I have considered all that the claimant has presented to me. 34. The respondent has also provided me written submissions that I have considered. Page 11 of 14 Jurisdiction point relating to the first respondent 35.The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints where there is a statutory right of appeal against decisions of the qualifications body, that statutory procedure must be used instead of bringing an employment tribunal claim. The employment tribunal will retain jurisdiction in respect of any complaints about acts not covered by that right. 36.Section 120(7) prevents the claimant from being able to bring before the employment tribunal a claim that seeks to complain about matters that should have been subject to the statutory appeal. Any “order or decision” of the Fitness to Practice committee can be the subject of an appeal to the appropriate court which in this case is the High Court. 37.The claimant has framed her claims as being about continuous discrimination by the NMC, suggesting conduct beyond any order or decision of the Fitness to Practice committee. In my view a close study of the contents of the claimant’s grounds of complaint indicates that the claimant is in effect challenging the decision of the Fitness to Practice committee. This is also evident when one considers the written documents that the claimant has produced. While the claimant has particularised many events as less favourable treatment or unfavourable treatment or unwanted conduct it is evident that they do not give rise to a detriment emanating from the NMC’s conduct unless one views them in the context of the decision making process of the NMC Fitness to Practice committee. It is at that stage that regard should be had to the claimant’s arguments about the conduct of the Trust which the claimant alleges was in various ways discriminatory against her on the grounds of her race and religion. This applies to all the claims that the claimant seeks to make against the first respondent. The claimant does not identify a complaint that relates to conduct that is not subject to the statutory appeal process for example by pointing to the handling of the referral of her case in a specific way outside the scope of the Fitness to Practice process. 38.The claimant also states that the fact that she was sent the decision of the NMC Fitness to Practice committee after the 28 days has elapsed means that she is able to make her complaint to the employment tribunal, because the respondent sent her the decision outside the time limit for an appeal to the appropriate court. I do not consider that such tardiness on the part of the NMC results in the jurisdiction of the High Court being removed so that the employment tribunal can have jurisdiction.[39]The respondent’s actions of sending the claimant the decision late does not have the effect of removing the jurisdiction of the appropriate court, because the jurisdiction is determined by the question whether there is a statutory right of appeal in respect of the complaint, if there is no jurisdiction in the employment tribunal. The claimant’s remedy remains in Page 12 of 14 the High Court notwithstanding that that the time for appeal may have elapsed at the point that the NMC sent her the relevant decision.[40]The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaints against the NMC. The claims against the fourth and fifth respondents[41]I am also required to consider whether the employment tribunal has jurisdiction under section 110 or 111 of the Equality Act 2010 to hear the complaints against the fourth and fifth respondents on the basis of an agent/principal relationship with the first respondent or instructing, causing or inducing a contravention of the Equality Act 2010?[42]The fourth respondent is an independent practising barrister who presented the NMC's case at the hearing held by a Fitness to Practice Committee. The fifth respondent was the chairman of the Fitness to Practice Committee.[43]Section 110 applies to employees or agents. The fourth respondent a practising barrister in independent practise is not an employee of the NMC nor are they an agent so they are not caught by section 110. The action of the fourth respondent, were they an agent or employee, would in any event be outside jurisdiction of the Tribunal because of section 120 (7).[44]The chairman of the fitness to Practise committee is not an employee of the respondent and is not an agent of the respondent or employee of the respondent. They are independent of the NMC, and provide services as an independent contractor.[45]The claimant contends that the action of the fourth and fifth respondent were in breach of section 111 which prohibits, instructing, causing or inducing discrimination. The allegations made against the chairman of the fitness to Practise Committee in this case cannot amount to a breach of section 111 as they relate to acts carried out in the course of being chairman of the Fitness to Practice committee.[46]The fourth respondent was a barrister in independent practise instructed to present a case before the panel, they put forward the case they were instructed to present. This cannot on the facts of this case amount to instructing, causing or inducing discrimination.[47]The fifth respondent as Panel Chairman acts of their own volition exercising their own discretion in making an independent decision. That cannot on the facts presented be capable of amounting to instructing, causing or inducing discrimination.[48]The claims against the fourth and fifth respondents as presented here have no prospect of succeeding and are therefore dismissed. Page 13 of 14 Part-Time Workers[49]Set out from paragraphs 45 of the claimant’s grounds of complaint the claimant makes complaints about “less favourable treatment under regulation 5 of the part-time workers’ regulations”.[50]The Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, provide, at regulation 5, that a part-time worker has the right not to be treated by his employer less favourably than the employer treats a comparable full-time worker.[51]The regulations provide that employer is, in relation to any employee or worker, means the person by whom the employee or worker is, or where the employment has ceased, was employed.[52]The claimant was never employed by the first, fourth or fifth respondents so there is no claim that the claimant can make against the employees under the 2000 Regulations.[53]The claimant states in her statement for the preliminary hearing at paragraph 54: “Although NMC is not my employer NMC remains the only excusive gate for my professional employment and is one of the causes of my present unemployment… Therefore NMC does not have to satisfy the definition of employer in that same sense.”[54]The claimant states in her statement for the preliminary hearing at paragraph 65: “Although it has bene correctly recorded that neither 4 or 5 Respondent are my employer, they remain liable having made their unlawful detriment decision by allowing themselves to be induced, caused or instructed by Respondent 1 and in addition by further adding extras on their own volition to my severe harm. In fact, their decisions and indecisions have directly caused me unemployability, among other damages, and that is why all my ET claims must be heard.”[55]The claimant recognises that the respondents were not her employer, there is no escaping this limitation of bringing claims under the Regulations against employers only. The respondents are not caught by the provisions so there is no jurisdiction for the employment tribunal to consider the claimant’s Part-Time Workers claim as presented in these proceedings. Approved by: Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto 28 August 2025 Page 14 of 14
hearing.
[1]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision in the claims against Nursing and Midwifery Council, Yvonne Ferns and Mark Gower being varied or revoked, because the claimant presents no basis for me to conclude that my decision was wrong or that it is in the interests of justice to reconsider the[2]The claims against Linda Heppolette and Emma Luhr who were employees of Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust was sent to addresses provided by the Nursing and Midwifery Council in compliance with an order made by EJ Hawksworth on made on 14 January 2025. There has been no response entered by Linda Heppolette or Emma Luhr.[3]The position of Linda Heppolette and Emma Luhr was not considered during the hearing on 4-6 August 2025. The claimant is correct when states that there has been no adjudication in any respect in relation to the claim against Linda Heppolette and Emma Luhr . The claims against Linda Heppolette and Emma Luhr should now be listed to consider whether the claims should proceed to a hearing, whether the claimant is entitled to a judgment in her claim or whether the claims should be struck out on the grounds that they have no reasonable prospect of success. Approved by: