Case 2301333/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Thomas v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301333/2021
- Decision date
- 23 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Thomas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Thomas was employed by King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust as a Band 6 Junior Sister. The dispute arose from an incident on 3 May 2018 in which she said a patient grabbed her hand during a manual handling transfer. She later applied for injury allowance under section 22 of Agenda for Change. The Trust investigated the application, considered witness statements and the claimant’s records, and on 16 September 2020 decided not to approve injury allowance because it could not determine that the injury had occurred during the course of her work. The claimant appealed and later asked for reconsideration in light of further medical evidence, but the Trust did not change its position.
At the open preliminary hearing on 21 March 2022, the tribunal applied the strike-out jurisdiction under Rule 37(1)(a). It accepted the general caution against striking out discrimination claims before full evidence is heard, but held that this case fell within the narrow category where strike out was appropriate because the pleaded case was fundamentally deficient. The claimant had not set out any basis for saying she was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, had not identified any particular act of disability discrimination, and had in her ET1 said she was not disabled.
The tribunal also struck out the arrears of pay claim. It found there was no pleaded basis for saying the claimant was owed wages under sections 13 to 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that injury allowance was not wages within section 27. The tribunal further observed that, to the extent the complaint was really that the Trust had not complied with the Agenda for Change contractual provisions on injury allowance, that was a breach of contract issue outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction while the employment continued.
The tribunal said any claim arising from the 16 September 2020 decision was out of time, because the ET1 was presented on 9 April 2021 and the claimant gave no explanation for the delay. It found there was no continuing act and no basis for extending time. It declined to make a deposit order, describing the claims as incurably deficient, and the case was struck out in full with no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(1)(a). It noted that the ET1 and subsequent statements did not set out any basis for disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010 or any particularised allegations of disability discrimination, and the claimant had said in her ET1 that she was not disabled. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the arrears of pay claim had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37(1)(a). It held that the claimant had not shown any entitlement to wages under sections 13 to 27 ERA 1996, that injury allowance was not 'wages' within section 27 ERA 1996, and that any entitlement sounded in breach of contract, which the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine while employment continued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Hack v. St Christopher’s Fellowship
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Romanowska v. Aspirations Care Limited
- HM Prison Service v. Dolby
- Hassan v. Tesco Stores
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd (t/a Travel Dundee) v. Reilly
- Mechkarov v. Citibank N A
- Anyanwu v. South Bank Students’ Union
- Chandhok v. Tirkey
- Ahir v. British Airways plc
- Porter v. Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Hutchison v. Westward Television Ltd
- Robertson v. Bexley Community Centre
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v. Jones
- Hemdan v. Ishmail
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.