Case 2212993/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Bibi v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2212993/2023
- Decision date
- 20 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Bibi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike out judgment under rule 37, not a merits decision. The Tribunal recorded that there had been two preliminary hearings. At the first, held by CVP on 25 October 2023, the claimant did not attend; the Employment Tribunal Clerk spoke to her, and she said she had moved, had changed her email address, and had not had notice of the hearing. Later attempts to call her failed.
The Tribunal noted that, despite knowing by at least 25 October 2023 that the Tribunal had been communicating with her, the claimant did not update her postal address or email with either the respondent or the Tribunal. It also noted that the respondent had been communicating with her at the email address on the claim form, and that she had not said she wanted a different method of communication. Although she said she had changed email address, she did not say she could no longer access the address she had given on the claim form.
The Tribunal wrote to the parties on 28 October 2023 listing a further preliminary hearing at Central London Employment Tribunal on 15 January 2024. The claimant did not attend that hearing either. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim because she was aware of tribunal hearings, answered a call from the Tribunal Clerk on 28 October 2023 but did not answer subsequent calls or contact the Tribunal when asked to do so later that day, and had not updated her address details.
On that basis, Employment Judge Emery struck out the claim. The judgment does not record any merits findings, liability findings, or remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37 for not being actively pursued. It did not contain any merits findings on unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37 for not being actively pursued. It did not contain any merits findings on race discrimination. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37 for not being actively pursued. It did not contain any merits findings on religion or belief discrimination. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
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.