Case 2205836/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Zaidi v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205836/2019
- Decision date
- 30 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- by telephone
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Zaidi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis telephone judgment concerned the respondent's application to stay or postpone disclosure and to postpone a hearing listed for 23 September 2020. The underlying case was described as a race discrimination claim, with Mr Zaidi alleging that his career progression in the respondent's business development team had been affected because of race and that he had been demoted after a restructure while white colleagues were promoted.
The respondent relied on Covid-19 disruption, saying that likely witnesses were frontline staff and that one key witness was project managing a change and expansion of children's and young people's mental health crisis services. The claimant opposed the application, saying that work within the NHS had moved to online working, including business development, and that the stay application had been made only two days before the disclosure deadline of 3 April 2020.
Employment Judge Adkin applied the overriding objective under rule 2 and considered the position as at 15 May 2020. He accepted that the respondent had faced real difficulties in early April and made no criticism of it for missing the original disclosure deadline, but concluded that by mid-May the situation had changed, that much disclosure could be handled electronically, and that the claimant's business development role was somewhat removed from the frontline pressures relied on by the respondent.
The judge refused a general stay of the proceedings and declined to postpone the final hearing, but he did extend the disclosure timetable to 15 July 2020. He also directed a further case management hearing for 30 July 2020, with a readiness update due by 24 July 2020, so that any genuine practical problems arising from the pandemic could be revisited closer to the listed hearing date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment determined the respondent's procedural application for a stay/postponement and did not decide the substantive merits of the underlying case. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- overriding objective under rule 2
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.