Dr Anil Taneja v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2023

This was a public preliminary hearing dealing with amendment and strike-out/time-limit issues, not the final merits of all claims. The tribunal considered whether three alleged protected acts for a victimisation complaint could proceed. It found that the December 2017 job planning grievance did not expressly or implicitly allege a breach of the Equality Act 2010, and that the earlier January 2017 email was not incorporated into that later grievance. It also found that the notes and evidence about the meetings on 15 November 2018 and 20 February 2019 did not show any reference to race, another protected characteristic, or discrimination in the legal sense. Those alleged protected acts were struck out, while other Section 27 matters were left unaffected.

The tribunal then considered two direct age discrimination complaints about failure to appoint the claimant as Cardiology Clinical Lead in August 2019 and November/December 2021. The claim was presented on 18 July 2022 after ACAS early conciliation, so events before 16 February 2022 required either conduct extending over a period or a just and equitable extension of time. Taking the claimant's case at its highest, the tribunal held that he had not shown a reasonably arguable basis that the age complaints were linked to in-time race discrimination, harassment, or victimisation complaints, or to a later 2023 non-appointment, as a continuing act or ongoing state of affairs.

On extension of time, the tribunal accepted for the purposes of the application that the claimant had relied on advice that he should exhaust internal grievance procedures first, but held that this did not give him reasonable prospects of obtaining an extension. It considered the length of delay, the claimant's ability to seek advice, the absence of a good reason for delay, the prejudice to the claimant, the neutral apparent merits, and potential forensic prejudice to the respondent, particularly because the 2021 issue would require evidence about the 2019 decision. The age discrimination complaints were therefore struck out.