Mrs Lisa Richards v Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2026

Following a preliminary hearing on 16 and 17 April 2026, Employment Judge Murdin struck out Mrs Lisa Richards's proceedings against Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in their entirety. The allegations included direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex and victimisation. The tribunal granted the respondent's application dated 13 August 2024 and dismissed the claimant's application to amend her claim, first made on 19 December 2024. It was deciding whether the proceedings could continue, rather than determining every allegation's substantive merits.

The tribunal considered the relationship between this claim, issued on 11 December 2023, and two earlier cases. Claim 1300021/2021 had been dismissed following a contested final hearing, with judgment promulgated on 8 December 2023. That judgment remained in force and contained detailed findings about managers' conduct, complaints, grievance procedures and employment decisions, covering events from 2013 to the conclusion of an appeal on 31 May 2022. Claim 1301470/2023 was subsequently struck out in its entirety on 11 February 2025.

Comparing the pleadings, the tribunal found that the present discrimination, harassment and victimisation allegations were materially the same as allegations in the first claim. The earlier tribunal had rejected the direct sex discrimination allegations because the conduct was not proved or was not related to sex, and no objective detriment was established. The harassment allegations had failed because the conduct was not proved, was not related to sex, or lacked the prohibited purpose or effect. The victimisation allegations had failed for lack of a detriment or a causal link to protected acts. Findings essential to that judgment could not be reopened through fresh proceedings or different wording; issue estoppel applied.

Other allegations concerned matters known to the claimant while the earlier proceedings were ongoing, including matters already raised in correspondence and internal complaints. The tribunal found no satisfactory explanation for why they could not have been included by amendment. Applying Henderson v Henderson and Johnson v Gore Wood, it concluded that pursuing those matters separately amounted to an abuse of process. It also examined alleged continuing victimisation, later communications and events after the earlier judgment. Although later acts could support fresh claims in principle, many allegations depended on rejecting findings already made and were therefore barred.

The tribunal recognised the particular caution required when striking out discrimination claims and separately considered its discretion under Rule 38. Further particulars, amendment, a deposit order or partial strike-out would not resolve the underlying legal bars. The claimant had engaged with earlier opportunities to clarify her case, but the substantial overlap remained. The tribunal considered strike-out proportionate in light of finality, the risk of inconsistent findings and the burden of repeated litigation. It considered the proposed amendments independently and refused them because the allegations were barred by issue estoppel or Henderson v Henderson, or disclosed no reasonable prospect of success.