Case 3200870/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Webber v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200870/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Webber
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment following an open preliminary hearing on limitation, continuing act, strike out and deposit issues. The tribunal held that the constructive unfair dismissal complaint had been presented within time and had reasonable prospects of success. It did not strike out the claim and made no deposit order.
The tribunal held that the complaints of disability discrimination, race discrimination, harassment, detriment for making public interest disclosures and victimisation were arguably linked as part of a continuing act and could proceed. In reaching that view, it noted that the allegations largely concerned the actions or omissions of the claimant's manager, Ms Miles-Gale, including issues about working from home, workload, support, time off, treatment of the claimant and other black staff, and the respondent's response to complaints. The tribunal considered that the latest alleged acts in March 2023 could anchor earlier matters for limitation purposes.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent accepted the claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression, while the issue of PTSD was left to the final hearing. It said that, if a just and equitable extension had been required, it would have granted one because of the claimant's surgeries, recovery period and ill health at the end of 2022 and start of 2023. In relation to constructive dismissal, the tribunal considered that some allegations might be difficult to link to the resignation, but that the broader discrimination allegations were sufficiently serious that, if proved, they could amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was treated at this preliminary hearing as part of an arguable continuing act and allowed to proceed. Merits not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability allegations were treated as part of an arguable continuing act and allowed to proceed. Merits not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination allegations were treated as part of an arguable continuing act and allowed to proceed. Merits not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations were treated as part of an arguable continuing act and allowed to proceed. Merits not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on disability grounds was treated as part of an arguable continuing act and allowed to proceed. Merits not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on race grounds was treated as part of an arguable continuing act and allowed to proceed. Merits not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Victimisation |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Comr [2003] IRLR 96
- Aziz v FDA [2010] EWCA Civ 304
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King [2020] IRLR 168
- Robinson v Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2015] All ER (D) 409 (Jul)
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation [2021] EWCA Civ 23
- Pathan v South London Islamic Centre EAT 0312/13
- implied term of trust and confidence
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.