Case 2414469/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr VB Gaikwad v Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414469/2021
- Decision date
- 19 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr VB Gaikwad
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, Judge Brian Doyle dealt with applications to amend and to strike out parts of the claim. The claimant’s application to amend 3 complaints of public interest disclosure detriment was refused, applying the principles in Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836 EAT. The tribunal then said that, whether amended or not, those public interest disclosure complaints were struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant’s application to amend 10 complaints of race (or sex) discrimination was allowed on the same Selkent basis. The respondent’s application to strike out those discrimination complaints was refused. However, the tribunal stated that those complaints had little reasonable prospect of success and made a separate deposit order in respect of them.
The tribunal recorded that any limitation questions remained to be decided at the final hearing, after evidence and argument. It also set case management directions for the claim, to the extent that it survived the preliminary hearing, to proceed to a final hearing at which all issues, including remedy, would be determined.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant’s application to amend the claim in respect of 3 complaints of public interest disclosure detriment was refused. The tribunal alternatively struck out those complaints as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant’s application to amend the claim in respect of 10 complaints of race (or sex) discrimination was allowed. The respondent’s application to strike out those complaints was refused, but the tribunal said they had little reasonable prospect of success and made a separate deposit order. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836 EAT
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.