Case 2415426/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms ST Afitlhile v Bupa Care Homes (GL) Ltd and 4 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415426/2021
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Ms ST Afitlhile
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public at Manchester on 4 July 2022, Judge Brian Doyle struck out the claimant's claim. The judgment recorded that the claim was an abuse of process because it was vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success, and was out of time.
The judgment did not make any monetary award. Consideration of the respondents' costs application was deferred for the judge to consider documents submitted on behalf of the claimant and, if necessary, the claimant's means as to ability to pay.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claimant's claim as an abuse of process because it was vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success, and was out of time. It did not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment struck out the claimant's claim as an abuse of process because it was vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success, and was out of time. It did not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the claimant's claim as an abuse of process because it was vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success, and was out of time. It did not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claimant's claim as an abuse of process because it was vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success, and was out of time. It did not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment struck out the claimant's claim as an abuse of process because it was vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success, and was out of time. It did not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
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.