In Person plus on day 1 as notetakers Mr Tierney and Mr Connel. On day 2 morning only Mr Tierney For the v Ms R Azib, barrister at law — 2020

The claim was presented on 29 July 2016 and initially included unfair dismissal, religious belief discrimination, race discrimination and other payments. On 25 January 2017, Employment Judge Morton refused the claimant's attempt to add a whistleblowing dismissal claim, held that ordinary unfair dismissal was outside jurisdiction because the claimant lacked two years' service, and said the remaining claim was that his dismissal was an unlawful act of race and/or religious discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal noted that the related County Court proceedings before Hellman J were heard over 3 to 10 December 2018 and decided in a judgment dated 11 January 2019. Hellman J dismissed the breach of contract and harassment claims, preferred the evidence of the NHS witnesses where it conflicted with the claimant's evidence, and made findings that management behaved reasonably and rejected the allegations of deliberate harassment. The appeal attempts were refused, and a later Civil Restraint Order was made.

At the Employment Tribunal hearing on 15 and 16 October 2020, Judge Britton rejected the claimant's application to strike out the response on the basis of alleged fraud or misconduct. He held that the tribunal was not the forum to reopen matters already determined by Hellman J, and that the County Court findings created issue estoppel so the factual basis of the race, religion and harassment claims could not be revisited. Applying the strike-out authorities he cited, he concluded that the remaining claims had no reasonable prospect of success and the respondent's strike-out application succeeded.

The claimant also pursued interim relief, but the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 30 April 2016 and that any interim relief application had not been presented within the seven-day time limit in section 128 ERA 1996. The tribunal said there was no power to extend that limit, so the interim relief application was dismissed. No monetary award was made.