Case 2301007/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kapirial v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301007/2022
- Decision date
- 31 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kapirial
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Kapirial, who had worked for St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as a Cancer Database Systems Manager, resigned on notice and said that additional work done between 24 and 30 November 2021 should have been paid separately. He claimed breach of contract and said £11,000 remained outstanding. The respondent said the work was done under the first contract, that he would instead be paid accrued leave on termination, and that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that the claim had no or little reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal set out the jurisdictional framework under article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and section 3(2) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, and also addressed strike out under Rule 37 and deposit orders under Rule 39. It noted the caution required where a litigant in person has pleaded the case, and accepted that several of the respondent’s objections turned on factual issues, including employment status, whether there was a second contract, whether that contract was connected with employment, and whether any sum was outstanding on termination.
On the pleadings alone, the tribunal said it could not determine those issues. It therefore refused both the strike-out application and the application for a deposit order, held that the claimant should be given the opportunity to plead his case properly and adduce evidence, and said that jurisdiction would have to be determined at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the respondent's applications to strike out the claim and for a deposit order, and said the underlying jurisdictional and factual issues would need to be determined at the final hearing. The claimant said £11,000 was due for work carried out between 24 and 30 November 2021. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 3(2) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Rule 37(1) no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
- overriding objective
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.