Case 2416564/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Scott v Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2416564/2018
- Decision date
- 2 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Scott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 23 October 2019, the Tribunal dealt with the claimant's application for relief against sanctions arising from the Unless Order. It reinstated only the protected disclosure claims because the claimant had complied with part of paragraph 1 by providing further particulars of disclosures and detriments, but it noted that she had not complied with the medical evidence requirement linked to the disability discrimination claims, which had already been dismissed by letter dated 4 October 2019 and which she did not seek to revive.
The respondent then succeeded on its strike-out application under Rule 37(1)(b). Applying the high threshold described in Blockbuster Entertainment, Bolch and Force One Utilities, the Tribunal found that the claimant's February 2019 email to the Chief Executive and June 2019 sympathy card, both sent in the course of the proceedings, were scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious. It held that the references to murder and terror, together with the wider context of the correspondence, meant a fair hearing was no longer possible and that no lesser sanction than strike-out was proportionate, so the reinstated protected disclosure claims were struck out in their entirety.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed by letter dated 4 October 2019 after non-compliance with paragraphs 1(3) and 2 of the order and Unless Order relating to disability discrimination claims and medical evidence; the claimant did not seek reinstatement at the hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure claims were first reinstated by relief against sanctions, then struck out under Rule 37(1)(b) for scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct of the proceedings. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- relief against sanctions
- Rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Bolch v Chipman
- Force One Utilities Ltd v Hatfield
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.