Case 2200883/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Prince v Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200883/2021
- Decision date
- 23 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Prince
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs P Prince presented her claim on 24 February 2021 after early conciliation. The claim form included race discrimination, disability discrimination and arrears of pay, but the tribunal recorded that it was not possible to identify all of the claims or their legal basis properly. At a preliminary hearing on 29 March 2022, Employment Judge A Richardson ordered further information and a disability impact statement so the issues could be clarified.
The case was listed and relisted several times because of the claimant's postponement applications, which the tribunal had granted on earlier occasions. At the public preliminary hearing on 23 September 2022, the claimant sought another postponement that morning, saying a family member had died and that shock had affected her arthritis and ability to walk. The tribunal refused the postponement under rule 30A, finding that the application was not made genuinely, was unsupported by evidence, and did not amount to exceptional circumstances.
The tribunal then heard the respondent's strike-out application. It concluded that the claimant had persistently failed to comply with tribunal orders, had provided incomplete and late material, and had not been entirely candid about compliance with those orders. Applying rule 37(1)(b), and taking account of the overriding objective and the authorities cited on proportionality, the tribunal struck out the claim as a proportionate response. No merits findings were made and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment's opening line says the claims were dismissed for failure to attend, but the reasons conclude that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(b) for unreasonable conduct. The merits were not determined. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment's opening line says the claims were dismissed for failure to attend, but the reasons conclude that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(b) for unreasonable conduct. The merits were not determined. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim form described this element as arrears of pay. The judgment's opening line says the claims were dismissed for failure to attend, but the reasons conclude that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(b) for unreasonable conduct. The merits were not determined. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- rule 30A
- rule 47
- rule 37(1)(b)
- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 2 overriding objective
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] IRLR 630
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson [2001] IRLR 324
- Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140
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.