Case 2402256/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr A Abdel Bari v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402256/2021
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr A Abdel Bari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment concerned the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response, made on 2 November 2021 and repeated in later emails. The tribunal refused that application.
The tribunal stated that strike out is a draconian sanction and that the grounds for doing so are limited to those in rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure. It held that the respondent's response could not be said to have no reasonable prospects of success and that the merits of the parties' positions would need to be decided at the final hearing after evidence had been heard.
The tribunal also considered whether the application might be based on the respondent's conduct of the proceedings. It found that the claimant had not shown scandalous, vexatious or unreasonable conduct. Although there had been some delay in providing patient documents, the tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation and held that the matter could be managed through case management orders before the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determines only an interlocutory application by the claimant to strike out the respondent's response. No substantive employment claim was adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.