Valilas V Januzaj Table Format
Valilas v Januzaj
Case Note activity
1. Both parties are dentists. The D was the principal of a practice in Droitwich Spa – the Droitwich Spa Dental Practice (“DSDP” for short). The dentists who practised at DSDP included the C. He was not an employee or a partner of the D. He practised under an oral agreement which was described by the Judge as “the facilities contract”. In essence, the arrangement was that in return for the right to make use of the premises and equipment and the services of the dental nurses and other staff he would pay the D each month 50% of his receipts.
2.The great majority of the C’s earnings from his practice at DSDP came from his contract with the local Primary Care Trust (“the PCT”). He was contracted to carry out a specified number of “Units of Dental Activity” (“UDAs”) for NHS patients over a year running from April to March, for a fixed price per unit. There was a dispute, which the Judge did not find it necessary to resolve, as to both the number and the price of the UDAs required under the contract. The argument proceeded before us on the basis that the total annual sum payable by the PCT was, in round figures, £195,200. That amount was paid, in advance, in equal monthly instalments of some £16,260. The greater part of each instalment was paid direct to the C himself, though part (in respect of so-called “non-exempt patients”) was paid, for essentially administrative reasons, through DSDP: the amounts that he received himself seem to have been about £12,000 per month.
1 It is an important feature of the case that the work under the PCT contract did not have to be spread evenly through the year; but if the C did not achieve the full number of units by the end of the year he was obliged to refund the consequent overpayment to the PCT. It is the C’s case that in that event the D would in turn be obliged to refund to him the equivalent proportion of what had been received in monthly payments during the year. I will
Case Note activity
1. Both parties are dentists. The D was the principal of a practice in Droitwich Spa – the Droitwich Spa Dental Practice (“DSDP” for short). The dentists who practised at DSDP included the C. He was not an employee or a partner of the D. He practised under an oral agreement which was described by the Judge as “the facilities contract”. In essence, the arrangement was that in return for the right to make use of the premises and equipment and the services of the dental nurses and other staff he would pay the D each month 50% of his receipts.
2.The great majority of the C’s earnings from his practice at DSDP came from his contract with the local Primary Care Trust (“the PCT”). He was contracted to carry out a specified number of “Units of Dental Activity” (“UDAs”) for NHS patients over a year running from April to March, for a fixed price per unit. There was a dispute, which the Judge did not find it necessary to resolve, as to both the number and the price of the UDAs required under the contract. The argument proceeded before us on the basis that the total annual sum payable by the PCT was, in round figures, £195,200. That amount was paid, in advance, in equal monthly instalments of some £16,260. The greater part of each instalment was paid direct to the C himself, though part (in respect of so-called “non-exempt patients”) was paid, for essentially administrative reasons, through DSDP: the amounts that he received himself seem to have been about £12,000 per month.
1 It is an important feature of the case that the work under the PCT contract did not have to be spread evenly through the year; but if the C did not achieve the full number of units by the end of the year he was obliged to refund the consequent overpayment to the PCT. It is the C’s case that in that event the D would in turn be obliged to refund to him the equivalent proportion of what had been received in monthly payments during the year. I will