Case 3301543/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Oltean v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301543/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Oltean
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether to strike out the claim at a preliminary hearing in public. The claimant did not attend, although the tribunal was satisfied that she had notice of the hearing and had sent extensive written representations. The judge decided to proceed in her absence rather than postpone.
The judge recorded that, at an earlier hearing and in subsequent emails, the claimant had been unable to provide a coherent narrative account of the allegations or identify specific acts or omissions said to amount to constructive dismissal, unlawful discrimination or whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found that the claimant's correspondence did not bring clarity to the complaints and that the respondent could not sensibly respond while the factual and legal basis remained unclear.
The claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal concluded that there was no realistic likelihood of the claimant bringing further clarity to the claim and that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant had been unable to identify the specific acts or omissions allegedly amounting to constructive dismissal. The claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant referred to discrimination related to nationality, including being Romanian while acquiring British nationality. The tribunal found the allegations essentially impossible to understand and struck out the claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claimant referred to religion in an email quoted by the tribunal. The judgment did not identify a coherent factual basis for this discrimination complaint. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The claimant referred to sexual harassment and to having been bullied and harassed. The judgment did not identify a coherent factual basis for the allegation and struck out the claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the claimant had not identified specific acts or omissions allegedly amounting to detrimental treatment as a whistleblower. The claim was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.