Case 2302214/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 2302214/2020
Decision date: 13 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Freer

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought the fifth claim in June 2020 after four earlier claims against the same respondent, many of which had already been consolidated and part-heard. The fifth claim repeated a broad range of complaints about events during her 2016-2017 employment, together with later complaints about employment references and a withdrawn job offer from Royal Wolverhampton Hospital. The respondent applied to strike out under rule 37, relying on no reasonable prospect of success, time limits, res judicata, and abuse of process. The tribunal recorded that the claimant attended by telephone and made submissions, and it treated the application as one to the fifth claim only.

The tribunal set out the strike-out and time-limit authorities, including rule 37, Johnson v Gore Wood, Henderson v Henderson, s.123 Equality Act 2010, and the continuing-act cases. It accepted that strike out is a draconian power and that discrimination claims are usually decided on the facts, but held that this was an exceptional case. Most of the matters in the fifth claim were already part of the earlier claims or were seriously out of time, and allowing them to continue would create disproportionate duplication of evidence, time, and resources while the earlier part-heard hearing was due to resume in August 2021.

The tribunal held that the Royal Wolverhampton reference complaint was the only clearly new matter in time, but it was still struck out because it duplicated the earlier reference disputes and no protected act or protected disclosure had been pleaded. It also treated the rest-break complaint about the 6 October 2016 incident as a new claim, but held it lacked particulars, was out of time, and was not supported by pleaded facts. The claimant's race, religion or belief, sex, and disability discrimination complaints, the whistleblowing complaint, and the 'other payments' head were all struck out because no arguable case had been articulated, the pleaded matters duplicated earlier proceedings, and no basis was shown for extending time. The fifth claim was therefore struck out in its entirety under rule 37 as an abuse of process and/or because the pleaded matters were duplicative or out of time.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	No separate factual basis was identified in the ET1/Statement of Claim; the tribunal struck it out with the other discrimination heads for duplication, lateness, and no arguable basis.	Struck out	Sex	—
Disability discrimination	The statement referred to disability symptoms, occupational health, and reference content, but the tribunal held these matters duplicated earlier proceedings and no arguable case was pleaded.	Struck out	Disability	—
Whistleblowing	Pleaded as 'whistle blowing victimisation' and reference complaints; the tribunal said the in-time Royal Wolverhampton reference complaint lacked a pleaded protected act or protected disclosure, and the other whistleblowing matters duplicated earlier claims.	Struck out	—	—
Working time regulations	A new complaint about an alleged entitlement to 20-minute uninterrupted rest breaks on 6 October 2016; struck out because it lacked particulars, was out of time, and overlapped with the earlier sanctuary-room dispute.	Struck out	—	—
Other	The ET1 also ticked 'other payments'; the judgment did not identify a more specific statutory label and held that no arguable case or proper particulars were pleaded.	Struck out	—	—
Religion or belief discrimination

Legal tests applied

13 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.