Case 2202409/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Duhulow v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust London Central: 19 February 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202409/2019
- Decision date
- 19 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Duhulow
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had presented particulars containing vague allegations of victimisation and direct religion/belief discrimination. The respondent requested further particulars in March 2022 and again before a preliminary hearing on 16 June 2022, but the claimant did not provide them and did not attend that hearing. Attempts by the employment judge and tribunal staff to contact her on the day were unsuccessful.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a temporary stomach-ache and later ran out of electricity and had difficulty recharging her phone, but it found those matters were only limited mitigation and were not adequate excuses for non-attendance or for failing to contact the tribunal. The tribunal also did not accept her explanation that she thought she did not have to provide further particulars until after the strike-out application had been determined.
Judge Joffe issued a strike-out warning and directions requiring the claimant to object by 24 June 2022 and to provide the requested information by 7 July 2022. By the hearing before Employment Judge Burns on 4 August 2022, the claimant still had not provided the further particulars. The tribunal found that she had conducted the claims unreasonably, failed to pursue them, and failed to comply with the order and direction.
The tribunal took the middle course of striking out paragraphs 12.3 to 12.6 and 13.1 to 13.6 of the particulars, together with the whole direct religious discrimination claim and the relevant part of the victimisation claim. The unfair dismissal claim and the remaining victimisation allegation were allowed to proceed to trial. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The whole direct religion/belief discrimination claim was struck out. The respondent had sought further particulars after receiving vague pleadings, and the claimant had still not provided them by the date of the hearing. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | The relevant part of the victimisation claim was struck out, but the claim was not disposed of in full. It was limited to the allegation that the claimant was dismissed because she had brought ET proceedings 2202409/2019 and/or because managers believed she might appeal the judgment sent to the parties on 24 May 2021 in those proceedings. | Other | — | — |
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.