Case 2307514/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Chisti v East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307514/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Chisti
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 15 January 2025, Employment Judge Richter heard the respondent's applications under Rules 38(1)(a) and 52(1)(b) in two linked claims brought by Dr Chisti against East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust. In claim 2307514/2024, the tribunal addressed an unlawful deductions from wages claim and an alternative breach of contract claim arising from alleged underpayment of wages.
The tribunal found that the last alleged deduction dated to June 2023, so the s.13 ERA 1996 unlawful deduction claim was outside the three-month limit in s.23(2)(a). Although Dr Chisti said he raised the issue with the respondent in July 2023, later sought help from the British Medical Association, and had been emotionally distressed, the tribunal held that it was nevertheless reasonably practicable for him to bring the claim in time. That claim was therefore dismissed. The alternative breach of contract claim was not struck out, because the attached Grounds of Complaint set out the factual background and the sums said to have been deducted, and the tribunal was satisfied it had a real prospect of proceeding to a final hearing.
In claim 2307515/2024, the tribunal struck out the ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The claimant's employment with the respondent ran from 10 October 2022 to 14 February 2024, so he had not completed the two-year qualifying period required by s.108 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that he had previously worked for other NHS employers, but held that contractual wording about continuous service could not alter the statutory rule. The whistleblowing detriment claim was allowed to proceed. Dr Chisti said he had made disclosures about short staffing and increased waiting times, including an email to Ms Turner on 27 July 2023, and he alleged subsequent detriment including remarks in a WhatsApp group and a post describing him as a 'frustrated doctor'. The tribunal refused to strike out that claim and also refused a deposit order, finding that a hearing was needed to determine the disclosures, the alleged detriments, and their relationship to the complaint leading to termination.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 ERA 1996 dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim within the primary three-month limit, so the s.23(4) extension point did not assist the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Alternative claim based on the same wage-deduction issue. The tribunal declined to strike it out, finding the attached Grounds of Complaint gave sufficient detail and the claim continued to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service with the respondent. The tribunal held that previous NHS service and contractual wording about continuous service could not displace the statutory requirement in s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment claim was not struck out and no deposit order was made. The claimant relied on alleged disclosures about staffing and waiting times, including an email to Ms Turner on 27 July 2023; he also said the claim included an automatic unfair dismissal allegation linked to those disclosures. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable to bring claim within 3 months
- no prospect of success
- little chance of success
- two-year qualifying period under s.108 ERA 1996
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.