Case 3203819/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Kazi v Barts Health NHS Trust for Newham University Hospital — 2023
- Case reference
- 3203819/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Kazi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 6 April 2023, Employment Judge T Knowles heard the case by video at East London Hearing Centre. Miss Kazi did not appear. The judgment records that all of the Claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules because of non-compliance with Tribunal orders.
The Respondent's counterclaim for recovery of an overpayment of wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment records no monetary award in favour of either party.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | All of the Claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules for non-compliance with Tribunal orders. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | All of the Claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules for non-compliance with Tribunal orders. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | All of the Claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules for non-compliance with Tribunal orders. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | All of the Claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules for non-compliance with Tribunal orders. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The Respondent's counterclaim for recovery of an overpayment of wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules
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.