Case 2303649/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Marrissa Barrett v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303649/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Marrissa Barrett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought claims alleging age, sex and disability discrimination. The preliminary hearing was listed to consider strike out or deposit orders, and the Claimant did not attend after indicating that she would not do so.
The Tribunal found several Rule 37 grounds were met, including non-compliance with Tribunal orders, failure actively to pursue the claims, and that a fair hearing was no longer possible. The Tribunal recorded that despite attempts to identify the issues, the nature and detail of the claims remained unclear, and concluded that strike out was proportionate.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the age discrimination claim was struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the disability discrimination claim was struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the sex discrimination claim was struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Rule 37 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013
- Cox v Adecco Group UK & Ireland and ors
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage
- Bennett v Southwark London Borough Council
- A v B and anor
- Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Student Union and anor
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd
- Smith v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Birkett v James
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.