Ms A Byczko v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust — 2024

The tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the claim after earlier preliminary hearings had been directed at clarifying the claims and issues. The claimant had originally brought complaints including constructive unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal due to whistleblowing, whistleblowing detriment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments; the holiday pay claim was recorded as resolved. The tribunal made no findings on the underlying employment allegations.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not complied with Employment Judge Ross's order requiring her to consider the draft List of Issues and, if necessary, amend that list. Instead, she produced a new lengthy document which did not engage with the draft list and left the legal and factual issues impossible to ascertain. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had tried her best and did not deliberately act unreasonably, but found that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted was unreasonable in effect.

The tribunal concluded that the delay and lack of clarification had prejudiced the respondent and that a fair trial was no longer possible because the respondent could not understand the case it had to meet. The tribunal considered alternatives, including an intermediary assessment, allowing only claims in the draft List of Issues to proceed, and allowing only the constructive dismissal claim to proceed, but found that none would realistically address the problems identified. The claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c); the tribunal stated that it would also have struck out under Rule 37(1)(b) if necessary.