Claimant v Spinks v North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust — 2023

The claimant had been employed by North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust as Head of Workforce Development and Engagement. She resigned on 30 September 2022, with notice taking effect on 31 December 2022. Her case form alleged that her post had been removed in a new structure because she had raised whistleblowing concerns, including concerns about bullying by the Director of Medical Education. In her Further Information of 8 May 2023 she identified 11 alleged disclosures between January and October 2022, including allegations about appointments being upgraded without due process, bullying, room and resource allocation, and the respondent downplaying her concerns.

At a preliminary hearing on 14 April 2023, Employment Judge Loy made case management orders requiring further information about the public interest disclosure allegations and the constructive dismissal claim. The orders required particulars of each disclosure, the basis on which it was said to be a qualifying disclosure under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, why it was said to be in the public interest, details of the alleged detriments, and the express or implied contractual terms said to have been breached. The claimant's response did not address the qualifying disclosure test, the public interest basis, the detriments, or the contractual terms relied on. After 21 June 2023 she had no further contact with the Tribunal or the respondent until seeking a postponement the day before the hearing.

At the hearing on 24 October 2023 the claimant did not attend. The Tribunal refused the postponement request and proceeded in her absence. It held that she had been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations and that her non-compliance was wilful, deliberate and repeated. Applying Rule 37 and the authorities cited in the reasons, the Tribunal concluded that the missing information was fundamental, that the respondent could not properly prepare its case, and that a fair hearing was not possible at the listed December 2023 hearing. It therefore struck out the claims in their entirety under Rule 37(1)(c), and/or Rule 37(1)(b), and/or because a fair hearing was no longer possible. Costs were reserved.