Case 2301973/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Jorge v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301973/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Jorge
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Jorge brought claims against University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust which were initially described as disability discrimination, sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. Further and better particulars served on 26 March 2024 referred to incidents in 2021 and 2022 and described claims for direct disability discrimination, direct sexual orientation discrimination, harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. The claimant relied on back injury and stress/anxiety as disabilities.
At a preliminary hearing on 25 September 2024, Employment Judge Ramsden warned the claimant about the importance of complying with Tribunal orders and the risk of strike out if he did not engage with the claim. The claimant was ordered to comment on the draft List of Issues, provide missing information, provide a schedule of loss, and provide an impact statement and medical evidence.
The hearing on 20 February 2025 was listed to consider whether the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. Employment Judge Davidson recorded that there had been no compliance with any of the orders, that the claimant did not attend, and that the respondent confirmed the claimant was aware of the hearing and of the respondent's intended strike-out application.
The Tribunal allowed the respondent's application and struck out the case under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order. No discrimination allegation was determined on its merits and no remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The pleaded disability-related claims included direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. The claimant relied on back injury and stress/anxiety. The claims were struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order, not determined on their merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The original claim was described as including sex discrimination. The later particulars described other claims but did not clearly particularise a sex discrimination allegation in the extracted judgment. The overall claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c), not determined on its merits. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The pleaded sexual orientation claim included direct sexual orientation discrimination. It was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order, not determined on its merits. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | The further particulars included harassment, but the extracted judgment does not state the protected characteristic to which the harassment allegation related. It was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c), not determined on its merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
- Equality Act 2010
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.