Case 2308034/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Chiweda v NHS England — 2022
- Case reference
- 2308034/2020
- Decision date
- 17 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Chiweda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application for reconsideration of a judgment dated 29 March 2022, which had dismissed the claim following apparent withdrawal. The earlier judgment followed an email in which the claimant said he had decided not to pursue the claim, subsequent tribunal correspondence asking him to confirm his intentions, and an application by the respondent for strike out or an unless order.
After the dismissal judgment was sent to the parties, the claimant wrote to the tribunal stating that he had not intended to withdraw his claim, referred to delays in obtaining GP medical records, and later provided evidence of hospitalisation between 16 April and 6 June 2022 due to a severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms. The respondent did not reply when invited to explain any opposition to reconsideration.
Employment Judge Andrews concluded that, in all the circumstances, particularly the claimant's period of illness and underlying medical condition, it was in the interests of justice to reconsider and revoke the judgment. The judge was not satisfied that the claimant fully intended to withdraw his claim, and directed that the matter be listed for a case management discussion.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment reconsidered and revoked an earlier judgment dismissing the claim following apparent withdrawal. It did not adjudicate the underlying substantive claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 70 the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
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.