Dr B Beeka v Coventry University London Campus Ltd — 2018

At the preliminary hearing on 27 September 2018, Employment Judge Russell sitting alone refused the claimant's further postponement application and her recusal application. The judge held that the medical evidence did not show fitness or unfitness to attend a hearing in September 2018, and that a fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude there was apparent bias from the earlier case-management comments or rulings.

Applying the continuing-act authorities, including Hendricks, Lyfar, Aziz and Ma, the tribunal held that a number of the earlier allegations were out of time and should be struck out. It struck out the allegations at paragraphs 17(1)(a) to (e), 17(3)(a) to (c), 17(3)(d) for any allegation before September 2016, 17(3)(e), and 17(4)(a) to (b), (d), (j) and (k). The judge declined to extend time, noting that the older allegations were distinct in substance and chronology. The tribunal nevertheless accepted that some 2015/2016 work-allocation and support complaints involving Mr Watkins, and the later 2017 work, performance and support allegations, could arguably form a continuing state of affairs.

The tribunal did not strike out the remaining discrimination claims on the merits, but it did regard some allegations as having little reasonable prospects of success and ordered £500 deposits for paragraphs 17(2)(a) other than June to September 2017, 17(2)(b), 17(4)(c), 17(4)(g) and 17(4)(h). It also made an unless order requiring the claimant by 16 November 2018 to identify, for each protected act or protected disclosure, the date, any document, the recipient if oral, and for disclosures the matter said to be shown. The victimisation, whistleblowing detriment and health and safety detriment claims were to stand dismissed if that order was not complied with, save for the complaint to Dr Cullinane on 24 February 2017 and the grievance dated 4 December 2017.

The tribunal granted a stay of the Employment Tribunal proceedings from 23 November 2018 because of the overlap with the claimant's High Court claim, which had been issued on 15 June 2018 and included substantially similar factual allegations. The January 2019 hearing dates were vacated, and the case was left to proceed, if at all, after the High Court position was known.