The Appellant is a locum doctor who worked at a Medical Practice where the Claimant was employed as a Practice Nurse. The Claimant alleged that the Appellant subjected her to sex-related and sexual harassment, and she brought proceedings against the Practice and the Appellant, claiming that the Appellant was either an employee or an agent of the Practice, rendering the Practice and himself liable for his actions. At a preliminary hearing, the ET held that the Appellant was an employee of the Practice for the purposes of section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA 2010"), and it did not go on to consider whether he was an agent of the Practice. The Appellant appealed on the grounds that the ET misdirected itself and applied the wrong test, expressly disregarded relevant and binding authority, and disregarded material and relevant factual considerations.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in considering that there was a fundamental distinction between an employee in the extended sense for the purposes of the EqA 2010 and a limb (b) worker for the purposes of Employment Rights Act 1996 and similar provisions, believing that the EqA 2010 only required a contract to do work personally. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a fresh ET for consideration of whether the Appellant was an employee or agent of the Practice.