Case 2200214/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Ms P Lewis of Counsel on 24 April only For v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 2200214/2018
Decision date: 16 April 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Walker

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms P Lewis of Counsel on 24 April only For

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant lodged the present claim on 20 January 2018 and a related claim one week later. Both concerned conditional offers of employment from UCL Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust that were later withdrawn. At a case management hearing on 23 April 2018, the issues were identified as a public interest disclosure claim, direct disability discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability, all said to arise from the withdrawal of the offers.

The respondent applied under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 to strike out the claims, relying on alleged scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct, non-pursuit, and the contention that a fair hearing was no longer possible. The tribunal reviewed the history of witness statement deadlines, the claimant's complaints about the bundle, and the strong language used in her emails. It also recorded that the claimant had produced medical evidence from her GP stating that she was fit to attend an employment tribunal, with the option of more frequent rests and comfort breaks.

Applying Rule 37, the overriding objective in Rule 2, the guidance in Baber v The Royal Bank of Scotland UK EAT/0301/15/JOJ and /0302/14/JOJ, and the caution against the draconian use of strike out referred to in James v Blockbuster Entertainment Limited [2006] IRLR 630 CA, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct had been unreasonable but held that strike out was not proportionate. It accepted that time remained for orderly preparation, that the respondent could still conduct its defence, and that a fair hearing remained possible. The tribunal therefore refused the strike-out application, held that the claim had not failed for want of active pursuit, and listed the matter to consider a further witness statement and case management directions. It also noted that any future application to amend would have to be considered in the normal way, including by reference to Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore: EAT 2 May 1996.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Public interest disclosure claim arising from the withdrawal of conditional offers of employment. The tribunal refused the respondent's Rule 37 strike-out application and made no merits finding on liability.	Other	—	—
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination claim arising from the withdrawal of conditional offers of employment. The tribunal refused strike out and made no substantive liability finding.	Other	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Claim for discrimination arising from a disability, identified by the tribunal as one of the live issues. The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application and did not determine liability.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.