Case 1804506/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Abiola John v B. Braun Medical Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804506/2022
- Decision date
- 6 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Abiola John
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 6 January 2023, Employment Judge R S Drake sitting alone struck out the claimant's claims against B. Braun Medical Ltd under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant had at points pleaded an alleged automatic unfair dismissal under section 100 ERA 1996, but by the hearing the case was being pursued as constructive unfair dismissal together with breach of contract and non-payment of wages.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been offered re-engagement on 19 May 2022, had replied the same day accepting the offer, and had signed a new contract that preserved continuity of employment from 29 October 2017 but placed her in a lower-paid Transcare Nurse role. On that basis, the judge concluded that any earlier complaint about dismissal or breach was overtaken by the accepted re-engagement. The judge also said the section 100 point was already defective on the pleadings because designation to carry out the relevant health and safety activities had not been pleaded.
Applying the Rule 37 threshold and the 'realistic as opposed to fanciful' test from Swain v Hillman, and referring to Whitbread v Mills and Taylor v OCS on considering the whole procedure, the tribunal held there was no conflict of evidence requiring a full hearing. All claims were dismissed following strike out, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at the preliminary hearing under Rule 37(1)(a). The tribunal treated the live case as constructive unfair dismissal after the claimant accepted re-engagement on 19 May 2022 and later resigned on 30 May 2022; the judge also said the pleaded section 100 ERA point lacked the designation element. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay. The tribunal held that any earlier breach was overtaken by the claimant's clear acceptance of re-engagement on new contractual terms, so the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Grouped with the other claims and struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) for no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not separately quantify any wage deduction issue. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Swain v Hillman realistic as opposed to fanciful prospect
- Whitbread v Mills / Taylor v OCS whole procedure
- section 95(3) ERA 1996
- section 100(1)(a) ERA 1996
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.
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.