Mr M Hassaballa v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2024

Mr Hassaballa was employed by United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust from 1 April 2022 until his resignation with effect from 28 February 2023. He presented his ET1 on 20 September 2023 after ACAS early conciliation between 18 and 23 September 2023. The original claim pleaded unauthorised deductions from wages and/or breach of contract for extra working hours, whistleblowing detriments said to arise from restriction on practising after an October 2022 surgical incident and a lack of support for promotion, and direct sex discrimination based on a comparison with a female doctor. At the preliminary hearing on 5 March 2024, the Tribunal also considered an application to amend, but refused it after applying the Selkent and Cocking factors.

On the amendment application, the Tribunal held that allegations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 were barred by judicial proceedings immunity because they related to evidence prepared for or referred to at the Claimant's MPTS hearing. It found the remaining proposed allegations were new claims rather than relabelling, required different evidence and factual enquiry, and were substantially out of time. The Tribunal was not persuaded that ill health prevented the Claimant from preparing the claim, noting that the medical evidence related to absence from work rather than inability to conduct proceedings, and that he had been able to email the Respondent in August 2023 threatening proceedings and referring to compensation figures. It also relied on his previous tribunal and GMC litigation experience when rejecting his explanation for delay.

On jurisdiction over the pleaded claims, the Tribunal held that the sex discrimination claim was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. It held the whistleblowing detriment complaint was also out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. For the wages claim, the Tribunal found the limitation period began on 27 March 2023 and that, given the Claimant knew of the alleged deductions and had not shown a credible reason for delay, it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time. All claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and no monetary remedy was awarded.