Case 2217766/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Estephane v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217766/2024
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Estephane
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSitting at London Central on 30 September 2024, Employment Judge Forde heard a public preliminary hearing in the claimant's second tribunal claim arising from his employment with the respondent NHS Trust between 17 November 2006 and 12 August 2012. The claimant's first claim had been struck out by Employment Judge Jones in July 2013 on the basis it had no reasonable prospects of success and the discrimination claims were out of time; appeals to the EAT and the Court of Appeal were unsuccessful, and a civil restraint order was imposed in 2017.
The judge struck out the entirety of the second claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a), finding that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. The tribunal also found that the claim offended the rule in Henderson v Henderson by raising matters that could have been raised in earlier proceedings, and that it had no reasonable prospects of success including because the claimant relied on evidence that did not yet exist.
Under rule 76(1)(a) of the 2013 rules, the tribunal exercised its discretion to make a costs order. From a costs schedule of £12,919.50 (reduced to £12,539.50 to reflect actual hearing time), the tribunal applied a 25% reduction to reflect costs not ordinarily recoverable and ordered the claimant to pay £9,500 to the respondent within 28 days. The claimant had voluntarily left the hearing before the costs application was determined.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted had been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious; tribunal also found no reasonable prospects of success and that the rule in Henderson v Henderson applied. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a). The entirety of the claimant's claim was struck out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
- Henderson v Henderson 1843 UKPC 6
- rule 76(1)(a) of the 2013 rules
- rule 29 of the 2013 rules
- Res Judicata
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.