Case 1400734/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr MA Ghani v NHS South, Central and West Commissioning Support Unit — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400734/2022
- Decision date
- 16 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr MA Ghani
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 31 July 2023 before Employment Judge Livesey concerned two preliminary matters in Mr MA Ghani's case against NHS South, Central and West Commissioning Support Unit: whether certain discussions in 2016 were protected by the without prejudice rule, and whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his claim. The tribunal found that the grievance raised on 4 July 2016 created a dispute between the parties, and that the meeting on 30 September 2016 was a genuine without prejudice discussion aimed at resolving that dispute. It also accepted that the claimant had agreed to proceed on that basis.
The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the unambiguous impropriety exception applied. It ordered the notes of the 30 September meeting and the 4 October 2016 email to be admitted only in redacted form, and prevented oral evidence about any offers said to have been made on 13 July and 30 September 2016. On that basis it dismissed the allegations at paragraphs 2.2.11 and 3.1.11 of the case summary, on the footing that the treatment complained of was the making of the offers discussed in the without prejudice meetings.
The claimant's amendment application was refused. The tribunal found the proposed additions were poorly pleaded, in some cases undated, and did not clearly identify the legal basis or alleged perpetrators. It held that most of the proposed amendments were significantly out of time, that some issues were already covered by the existing claim or list of issues, and that allowing the rest would disrupt the hearing timetable and require fresh evidence and disclosure. The final hearing remained listed for September 2023, and the tribunal said the claimant could revisit matters already within the claim form but missing from the list of issues at the end of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary ruling only. The tribunal held that the alleged treatment was part of without prejudice discussions and dismissed the allegation at paragraph 2.2.11; the substantive merits of the wider race discrimination claim were not determined at this hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary ruling only. The tribunal held that the alleged treatment was part of without prejudice discussions and dismissed the allegation at paragraph 2.2.11; the substantive merits of the wider religion or belief discrimination claim were not determined at this hearing. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary ruling only. The tribunal held that the alleged treatment was part of without prejudice discussions and dismissed the allegation at paragraph 2.2.11; the substantive merits of any harassment complaint were not determined at this hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment also dismisses paragraph 3.1.11 of the case summary, but the extracted text does not state the legal label for that allegation. It is therefore recorded as other. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- without prejudice principle
- unambiguous impropriety exception
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Chapman v Simon
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Cocking v Sandhurst
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.