Case 2301653/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Dean v West London NHS Trust RECORD OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301653/2023
- Decision date
- 15 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Dean
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 8 July 2024, Employment Judge Truscott KC refused the claimant's amendment applications. Applying Selkent and Vaughan, the tribunal found that the proposed additions did not materially assist the claimant, that she had already had union assistance and a lengthy opportunity to set out her case, and that the balance of hardship favoured the respondent.
On limitation, the tribunal held that the claims were significantly out of time. Using the ET1 presentation date of 13 April 2023 and the Acas early conciliation period between 30 January and 13 March 2023, it identified 31 October 2022 as the earliest prima facie in-time act. The direct race and race-harassment complaints related only to events between 7 July 2021 and 4 April 2022, and the tribunal held that they did not show treatment because of race.
The tribunal said that the allegations about being described as 'angry' and having 'misperceptions' did not establish race discrimination or race harassment, and that some alleged incidents were not included in the Grounds of Complaint so permission to amend was refused. It also held that the disability-based allegations did not permit an inference that a non-disabled comparator with the same abilities would have been treated better, and that the pleaded conduct was too wide-ranging and insufficiently linked to disability.
Proceeding on the basis that the claimant was disabled, the tribunal nevertheless held that the discrimination arising from disability complaints were arguable but very much out of time, with no reasonable prospect of a tribunal finding jurisdiction on the pleaded case. The victimisation complaint also failed because the protected act relied on had not been pleaded in the Particulars of Complaint and no retaliatory motive was identified. The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a); the tribunal held the pleaded incidents did not show less favourable treatment because of race and that some alleged incidents were outside the original Grounds of Complaint, so amendment was refused. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out; the tribunal held the pleaded facts did not allow a full tribunal to conclude that a non-disabled comparator with the same abilities would have been treated better. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Other | Struck out; the tribunal said the discrimination arising from disability complaints were arguable but very much out of time, and there was no reasonable prospect of a tribunal finding jurisdiction on the pleaded case. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Struck out; the tribunal held the allegations were not shown to be related to race and that any alleged proscribed effect was unreasonable. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Struck out; the tribunal held the allegations were insufficiently linked to disability and were too wide-ranging to support harassment. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out; the tribunal held that the protected act was not pleaded in the Particulars of Complaint and no retaliatory motive for the later steps was identified. |
Legal tests applied
29 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Galilee v Commission of Police of the Metropolis
- Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Sougrin v Haringey Health Authority
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King
- Abertawe v Morgan
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
- Hack v St Christopher's Fellowship
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Romanowska v Aspirations Care Limited
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd v Reilly
- Mechkarov v Citibank N A
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Ukegheson v Haringey London Borough Council
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme v Williams
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence
- Hardy & Hansons plc v Lax
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.