Case 3201766/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Humby v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201766/2020
- Decision date
- 12 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Humby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing concerning a claim of constructive dismissal and victimisation. The tribunal gave the claimant leave to amend the claim to include detriments about the move to Prescott Street and the restructure process, but refused permission to add allegations concerning the Board Lead and Performance Analyst roles because those were substantial new matters, raised late, and would materially expand the hearing.
On limitation, the tribunal held that the alleged removal of management duties in September 2018 and the performance management process from January 2019 were discrete acts with continuing consequences, not part of a continuing course of conduct. It found no good reason to extend time, taking into account the claimant's familiarity with the tribunal process, the age of the matters, the need for further witnesses, and the likely effect on the cogency of evidence.
The tribunal held that allegations arising from the restructure, the available posts in August and September 2019, the move to a Band 5 position, and the claimant's resignation were capable of forming a course of conduct. Those matters were not dismissed at this stage and were left to be determined at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The constructive dismissal claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing. The respondent accepted it was in time and it remained for the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation detriments concerning removal of management duties in September 2018 and the performance management process from January 2019 were found to be out of time, and time was not extended on just and equitable grounds. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal gave leave to amend to include victimisation detriments about the move to Prescott Street and the restructure process, except for allegations about the Board Lead and Performance Analyst roles. The remaining detriments were held capable of being a course of conduct, with that issue to be decided at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Selkent factors
- Cast v Croydon College
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Adjejei v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- section 33(3) Limitation Act 1980
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.