Locum consultant psychiatrist dismissed after GMC proceedings discovered: time limit bars claim
A locum consultant psychiatrist who was summarily dismissed after three days when the NHS Trust discovered he was subject to GMC proceedings had his claim against the Trust dismissed as out of time.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #locum-consultant-psychiatrist
- #summary-dismissal
- #gmc-proceedings
- #fixed-term-contract
- #time-limit-issue
- #strike-out
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged as a locum consultant psychiatrist for one month from 4 April 2018.
- He was summarily dismissed on 6 April 2018 after the Trust discovered he was subject to GMC/MPT proceedings.
- The claimant initially believed Medecho was his employer and filed a claim against them on 19 August 2018.
- He received a payslip and P45 from the Trust in late October/early November 2018, indicating the Trust was his employer.
- The claimant applied to add the Trust as a second respondent on 6 February 2019, which was out of time.
- The claim against the Trust was dismissed as it was not filed in time and no extension was granted.
Timeline
-
Engagement start
Claimant commenced work as locum consultant psychiatrist with the Trust, initially for one month.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed by the Trust after they discovered he was subject to GMC/MPT proceedings.
-
ACAS early conciliation against Medecho
Claimant filed ACAS early conciliation notice against Medecho.
-
ET1 claim against Medecho
Claimant filed employment tribunal claim against Medecho for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages.
-
Trust generated contract
Trust internally generated a fixed-term worker contract showing end date as 6 April 2018.
-
Claimant received payslip and P45
Claimant received payslip and P45 from Trust, realising Trust was his employer.
-
Application to add Trust as respondent
Claimant applied to add the Trust as a second respondent.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Richardson held a preliminary hearing on strike out and time limit issues.
-
Final strike out
Employment Judge Harding struck out the claim for failure to actively pursue.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against the NHS Trust was filed within the three-month time limit, and if not, whether it was not reasonably practicable to file in time so that an extension could be granted.
The outcome
The employment tribunal dismissed the claim against the Trust. The key reason was that the claim was filed too late. The claimant initially believed his employer was the recruitment agency Medecho Ltd and filed a claim against them in time. However, he only discovered the Trust was his actual employer when he received a payslip and P45 in late October/early November 2018. He applied to add the Trust as a respondent on 6 February 2019, which was over three months after discovering the correct employer. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have filed in time, as he had the necessary information by early November 2018. No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are unsure who your employer is, check your payslip, contract, or P45 as soon as possible – the time limit for bringing a claim starts when you know or could reasonably know who to sue.
- Employment tribunal claims must usually be filed within three months of the dismissal; this time limit applies to each respondent separately.
- If you discover a mistake about your employer's identity, act quickly – delays of more than a few weeks may mean your claim is out of time.
- Representing yourself is possible, but missing procedural deadlines can be fatal to your case even if the underlying facts are strong.
A short-lived role with lasting consequences
This case shows how quickly a locum placement can unravel when a past regulatory issue comes to light. The claimant, a consultant psychiatrist, was engaged for a one-month locum with an NHS Trust. He worked for just three days before being summarily dismissed when the Trust learned he was subject to proceedings before the General Medical Council and the Medical Practitioners Tribunal. The GMC proceedings were health-related and placed no restriction on his ability to work, but the Trust decided to end the engagement immediately.
The time limit trap
The claimant initially believed his employer was the recruitment agency Medecho Ltd, which had placed him. He filed an unfair dismissal claim against Medecho in time. But when he later received a payslip and P45 from the Trust in late October or early November 2018, he realised the Trust was his actual employer. He applied to add the Trust as a second respondent on 6 February 2019 – over three months after discovering the correct employer. The tribunal held that this was too late. The three-month time limit for bringing a claim against the Trust started when the claimant knew or could reasonably have known that the Trust was his employer, which was by early November 2018 at the latest. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to have filed in time, so no extension was granted.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant's mistake was understandable but costly. He could have checked his employment status earlier – for example, by asking for a written contract or statement of terms on his first day. He also could have filed a protective claim against both Medecho and the Trust at the outset, even if he was unsure who the correct employer was. The tribunal noted that the claimant was a consultant psychiatrist and capable of understanding the need to act promptly.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that time limits in employment tribunals are strict and apply separately to each respondent. If you are unsure who your employer is, you should gather evidence quickly – payslips, contracts, and P45 forms are key. If you discover a mistake, you must act immediately. Even a delay of a few weeks can mean your claim is dismissed, regardless of the merits of your case.
Similar cases
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Senior HR manager's constructive dismissal claim dismissed: resignation was for better job
A senior HR manager who resigned after accepting a higher-paid job failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal or discrimination. The Birmingham tribunal found no breach of contract by National Highways Ltd.
