Dr R Heal v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Tribunal: London Central Date: 31 March 2022 — 2022

By a letter dated 7 December 2021, the tribunal warned Dr R Heal that it was considering striking out the whole claim because it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success. The warning referred to earlier decisions in case no 1303049/2018 and others (the PH1 judgment) and claim no 3332712/2018 (the PH3 judgment), which had already considered issues said to be materially similar to those raised in the present case.

Dr Heal responded that he had legal aid assistance and maintained that the respondent had made false statements about trainee clinical psychologists, that the claim was not out of time, and that the Trust had no lawful contracts with the University of Birmingham or the clearing house. The respondent later said that the claimant had not provided a substantive response to the strike-out warning. In a further response, the claimant repeated that trainee clinical psychologists were NHS employees rather than students, that they did not attend the University of Birmingham, and that the University did not have power to grant or refuse employment within BSMHFT.

Employment Judge A James concluded that the claimant was re-running the same arguments rejected at PH1. The judgment records that there is no reason in employment law why trainee clinical psychologists cannot be both students of the University and employees of the Trust, and that successful trainees are awarded a PhD and eligible to apply for HCPC registration. The judge also found that the claimant had not used the correct process because he had applied directly to the respondent Trust rather than via the correct route.

For those reasons, the tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, holding that it had no reasonable prospect of success and was totally without merit. The tribunal said it was not necessary to decide the time limit issue. No remedy was awarded.