Case 2201691/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M A Hassan v Barts Health NHS Trust and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201691/2015
- Decision date
- 28 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henderson. She
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr M A Hassan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the respondent's application to strike out three live Employment Tribunal claims: 2201691/2015, 3202042/2015 and 3200734/2016. Those claims included allegations of whistleblowing detriment and religious discrimination arising from the claimant's former locum consultant engagement and related later events. The tribunal did not decide the merits of those allegations.
The tribunal proceeded on the basis of the claimant's criminal conviction arising from events at a preliminary hearing on 7 February 2019. It found that, in the context of that hearing, the claimant became aggressive and disruptive, threatened the judge and opposing barrister, and assaulted a non-legal tribunal member. The tribunal found that conduct was part of the conduct of the tribunal proceedings and was scandalous.
The tribunal also found that, before and after that incident, the claimant had conducted the proceedings vexatiously and unreasonably through extensive, repetitive and offensive correspondence containing serious allegations against the respondent, legal representatives, judges and others. It concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible, that no lesser penalty would suffice, and that striking out all three remaining live claims was proportionate and necessary in the interests of justice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The three live claims included allegations of whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal did not determine the merits; the claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(b) because of the manner in which the claimant conducted the proceedings. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The three live claims included allegations of religious discrimination. The tribunal did not determine the merits; the claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(b) because of the manner in which the claimant conducted the proceedings. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- rule 2 overriding objective
- Bolch v Chipman
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Harmony Healthcare plc v Drewery
- Force One Utilities Ltd v Hatfield
- Gainford Care Homes v Tipple & Roe
- Logicrose v Southend United Football Club
- Arrow Nominees v Blackledge
- Bennett v Southwark London Borough Council
- Chidzoy v BBC
- Bayley v Whitbread Hotel Co Ltd
- Attorney General v Barker
- Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
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.