Case 1805866/2021 · Employment Tribunal
“J” v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805866/2021
- Decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
“J”
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the respondent's application to strike out the Equality Act complaints under section 123 and Rule 37. The claimant relied on a grievance raised in September 2020, dismissed in February 2021 and unsuccessfully appealed on 23 September 2021, together with ACAS early conciliation from 30 July 2021 to 10 September 2021. The claim was presented on 19 November 2021.
It held that the complaints arising from events before 1 May 2021 were out of time and should not be extended as just and equitable. The judge accepted that the claimant had specialist professional advice and had raised a grievance while time remained to bring proceedings, but found no cogent explanation for the delay in presenting the claim. The tribunal rejected the argument that the pleaded matters formed a continuing course of conduct under section 123(3)(a), finding the incidents were discrete and not sufficiently connected; it specifically noted that the complaint about a book in the library and the later Covid memo were materially different.
The only complaint in time, concerning the 12 July 2021 memo about Covid risk assessment and asking about a person's sex category, was found to be thinly pleaded and not self-proving. The tribunal concluded that it disclosed no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out under Rule 37. No further case management orders were made and the final hearing listed for 9 December 2022 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint that personal lived history as a trans person was said not to be relevant to a post; dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Harassment | Alleged derogatory comments by Dr Whittaker in 2018-2019; dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Harassment | July 2019 complaints about the respondent not offering trans staff protection from colleagues' and practitioners' critical views of ROPD and AGP; dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Harassment | Complaint that the claimant and a colleague were outed on social media in October 2019; dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Harassment | Alleged derogatory comments by Dr Phillott in November 2019; dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Harassment | Complaint that being told disciplinary procedure could follow if she spoke out on trans issues was unwanted conduct; dismissed as out of time. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.123(1)(a) EqA three-month limit
- s.123(1)(b) just and equitable extension
- s.123(3)(a) conduct extending over a period
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend BC
- British Coal v Keeble
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Simms v Transco
- Afolabi v Southwark BC
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Adedeji v University of Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Rule 37 strike out
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.