MRS A MAPARA v Priory Group/ Priory Healthcare Ltd and 3 others — 2022

Mrs A Mapara brought employment tribunal claims described as unfair dismissal, age, race and sex discrimination, false imprisonment and stigma discrimination. She also referred in her schedule of loss to illegal eviction, personal injuries, rent paid, malicious prosecution and a failed data subject request. Employment Judge J S Burns heard strike-out applications by Priory Healthcare Ltd, Pippa Manby and Simon Forshaw, and considered strike out against Lee Newman-Izydorczyk on the tribunal's own initiative.

As against Priory Healthcare Ltd, the tribunal held that the recognisable employment tribunal claims were wholly out of time. It noted that the claimant had previously pursued unfair dismissal and age, sex and race discrimination claims arising out of the same or substantially the same facts, including ET claim 2355619/2010, which had default judgment set aside and was then dismissed, and later discrimination claims that were dismissed on limitation grounds. The judge said any differences of emphasis in the present claim would in any event be barred by res judicata and abuse of process; the additional matters in the schedule of loss were not claims over which the tribunal had jurisdiction.

As against Ms Manby and Mr Forshaw, the tribunal found they were barristers who had only acted for other defendants in the 2014 High Court litigation. They had never been instructed by the claimant, owed her no duty, and as advocates were immune from suit. The tribunal held there was no employment or other relationship capable of engaging the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Equality Act 2010, and any claim would in any event be many years out of time.

As against Mr Newman-Izydorczyk, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that any claim would offend res judicata and issue estoppel and would also be significantly out of time, so that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal struck out all claims under rule 37(1)(a) as vexatious and totally without merit, and ordered costs of £4,450 to the first respondent and £14,083.80 to the second and third respondents after taking the claimant's evidence of her means into account, including her evidence that she earned about £35,000 a year as an agency nurse.