Case 2202019/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Passman v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2202019/2024
- Decision date
- 14 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Passman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Employment Judge Brown had written to the claimant on 15 November 2024 giving her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out. The reasons given were non-compliance with the tribunal's order of 12 September 2024, including failure to provide a schedule of loss, a disability impact statement, and medical evidence in support of disability by the specified dates.
The tribunal also recorded that the claim had not been actively pursued, noting that the claimant had not complied with the orders and had not responded to the respondent's correspondence about this. The claimant was given until 22 November 2024 to respond but did not make written representations or request a hearing.
The claim was therefore struck out, and the five-day final hearing listed for 31 March and 1 to 4 April 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole. The unfair dismissal classification follows the provided listing category, but the judgment text itself does not separately describe the pleaded claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and refers to an order for a disability impact statement and medical evidence. The disability discrimination classification is consistent with the listing category, but the judgment does not set out the substantive allegations. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.