Locum physiotherapist's unfair dismissal claim fails over employment status
A locum physiotherapist who claimed he was unfairly dismissed had his case thrown out after the tribunal found he was a worker, not an employee, and failed to comply with court orders.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #employment-status
- #disability-discrimination
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #strike-out
- #non-compliance-with-directions
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged as a locum physiotherapist via an agency from June 2019.
- The claimant accepted he was not an employee until March 2020, when he alleged a verbal contract was formed.
- The tribunal found no evidence of a change in employment status; the claimant remained a worker.
- The claimant failed to provide medical evidence to support his disability discrimination claim.
- The claimant repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders, leading to strike out of his claims.
Timeline
-
Engagement as locum physiotherapist
The claimant began working for the respondent as an agency locum physiotherapist via Globe Locums and an umbrella company.
-
Alleged verbal contract discussion
The claimant claims he discussed a fixed-term employment contract with Hannah Thomas, but the tribunal found no such agreement.
-
Claimant asserts employee status
The claimant believed he became an employee, but the tribunal found he remained a worker.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant filed claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, unpaid wages, and other matters.
-
Preliminary hearing on status and disability
Employment Judge Duncan heard evidence on whether the claimant was an employee and disabled.
-
Reserved judgment on status and disability
Judge Duncan found the claimant was a worker, not an employee, and not disabled.
-
Reconsideration refused
Judge Duncan refused the claimant's application to reconsider the June 2022 judgment.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Sharp issued directions for the remaining claim, including schedule of loss and disclosure.
-
Strike out of unpaid wages claim
The unpaid wages claim was struck out for non-compliance and lack of reasonable prospects.
-
Strike out hearing for remaining claims
Employment Judge Sharp struck out the remaining claims due to persistent non-compliance with orders.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee or a worker, and whether he was disabled, before considering whether his claims should be struck out for failing to follow case management directions.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's entire case. It first ruled that he was a worker, not an employee, meaning he had no right to claim unfair dismissal. His disability discrimination claim was dismissed because he provided no medical evidence of a disability. The remaining claims were struck out for persistent failure to comply with tribunal orders, including not providing a schedule of loss or disclosing documents.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers and locums are usually not employees — check your employment status before bringing an unfair dismissal claim.
- If you claim disability discrimination, you must provide medical evidence to prove you meet the legal definition of disability.
- Failing to comply with tribunal directions, such as providing documents or a schedule of loss, can lead to your entire case being struck out.
- Representing yourself is possible, but you must still follow procedural rules and deadlines strictly.
This case shows how crucial employment status is for bringing an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant, a locum physiotherapist working through an agency, believed he had become an employee after a conversation with a manager. But the tribunal found no evidence of a contract of employment — he remained a worker throughout his engagement. Without employee status, he had no right to claim unfair dismissal.
The claimant also alleged disability discrimination, but failed to provide any medical evidence to support his condition. The tribunal dismissed this claim at a preliminary hearing. Later, the remaining claims — including for unpaid wages — were struck out because the claimant repeatedly ignored case management orders. He did not provide a schedule of loss, failed to disclose documents, and missed deadlines.
What could have been done differently
The respondent, Hywel Dda University Local Health Board, maintained from the start that the claimant was a worker. The tribunal agreed. For the claimant, the outcome might have been different if he had sought legal advice on his employment status early on, and if he had complied with tribunal directions. Providing medical evidence for his disability claim would have been essential.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect litigants in person to follow the same rules as represented parties. Failing to do so can result in a strike out, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. It also highlights the importance of understanding your employment status — many agency workers assume they have employee rights when they do not.
Similar cases
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
Agency worker's disability discrimination claim struck out against agency
A former sterile cleaning supervisor had her disability discrimination claim against an employment agency struck out after she could not identify any discriminatory act by the agency.
HR Business Partner's disability and whistleblowing claims allowed to proceed despite strike-out bid
A tribunal has refused an employer's attempt to strike out claims of disability discrimination and victimisation brought by an autistic HR Business Partner who was dismissed after raising concerns about missing right-to-work documents.