Case 2301732/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Faddah v Maidestone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 2301732/2025
- Decision date
- 1 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Reed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Faddah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 2 June 2026, Employment Judge MJ Reed struck out Mr Faddah’s unfair dismissal claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38 because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judge also struck out the breach of contract and unauthorised deduction of wages complaints concerning Mr Faddah’s payment at band 6 rather than band 7, on the same basis. His remaining claims, including breach of contract and unauthorised deduction of wages complaints alleging that he was paid at a lower point within band 6 than had been agreed, will continue. No remedy was awarded or determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint concerning payment at band 6 rather than band 7 was struck out. The separate breach of contract complaint concerning payment at a lower point within band 6 than allegedly agreed will continue. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint concerning payment at band 6 rather than band 7 was struck out. The separate unauthorised deduction of wages complaint concerning payment at a lower point within band 6 than allegedly agreed will continue. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38: no reasonable prospect of success
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.