Case 2600559/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Afshan Siddique v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600559/2021
- Decision date
- 8 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Afshan Siddique
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Afshan Siddique brought two claims against Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. The first, presented on 19 March 2021, alleged discrimination on grounds of race, disability and religion or belief, together with harassment and victimisation. She described herself as British Pakistani and Muslim, and said her disability was anxiety. A second claim, presented on 19 October 2021, made further discrimination allegations arising from matters said to have occurred on 9 and 10 June 2021.
The tribunal recorded that the claims had not been properly particularised. Orders were made requiring further and better particulars, disability impact information, GP records and medical evidence explaining any inability to comply. The claimant's representatives reported difficulty obtaining effective instructions, and the final hearing listed for November 2022 was vacated. The respondent applied to strike out both claims under Rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
Employment Judge Hutchinson considered Rule 37, the Rule 2 overriding objective, and the need to decide whether strike out was a proportionate response. The judge considered whether a less drastic step, including an Unless Order, would be appropriate. The tribunal found that the claimant had completely failed to comply with orders to provide further particulars, medical evidence and an impact statement; had not actively pursued the case; and had not provided medical evidence explaining the failures or indicating when she would be able to proceed.
The tribunal concluded that further orders would not be appropriate. It found that the respondent would suffer unfair prejudice if the claims continued when they were not properly pleaded and there was still no indication when particulars would be provided. The claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation were struck out. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37 for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued; no merits determination. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37 for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued; no merits determination. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37 for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued; no merits determination. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Struck out under Rule 37 for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued; no merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out under Rule 37 for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued; no merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Johnson v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] UKEAT/0095/13
- proportionate response to non-compliance
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.