Case 3303438/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303438/2020
- Decision date
- 19 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Shastri-Hurst Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHannah Cullen's claim against The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust came before Employment Judge N Shastri-Hurst on 29 March 2021 for a preliminary hearing on strike out, deposit order and amendment. The original ET1 presented on 23 March 2020 pleaded constructive unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction of wages. The claimant later sought to add disability discrimination based on autism and mental health conditions, but the tribunal noted that disability status was not conceded and was not being determined for final merits at this stage.
The holiday pay element of the wages claim was struck out. The tribunal accepted the respondent's later calculation that the claimant was owed 13 hours of accrued but untaken leave rather than 25 hours, and that she had in fact been paid through 31 October 2019 even though her notice period ended on 28 October 2019. On the documents before it, the tribunal held that the claimant had no positive case to advance for 25 hours and that the claim had no real substance.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim was not struck out and no deposit order was made. The tribunal found there were factual disputes about the sickness absence process and the alleged breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence, and held that the cumulative effect of the alleged incidents, including any last-straw analysis, needed to be resolved at a final hearing. The amendment application was refused under Selkent: the original ET1 contained no discrimination claim, the proposed amendment was treated as a new claim made around eight months later, the tribunal held it would be out of time, and it was not satisfied that time should be extended on a just and equitable basis. The balance of hardship and injustice favoured refusal, so only the constructive unfair dismissal claim remained live.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The holiday pay element of the wages claim was struck out. The tribunal found the respondent had shown only 13 hours of accrued but untaken leave were owed and that this was offset by payment for 29 to 31 October 2019, so the claimant had no positive case for 25 hours. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The respondent's strike out application and alternative deposit order application were both refused. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The application to amend to add disability discrimination was refused. The tribunal held the original ET1 did not plead discrimination, treated the proposed claim as a new claim, found it out of time, and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- r37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- r39 deposit order
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Housing Corporation v Bryant
- Gillett v Bridge 86 Ltd
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Bexley Community Centre v Robertson
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Malik implied term of trust and confidence
- Tullett Prebon objective fundamental breach
- Omilaju last straw
- Williams v Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ukegheson v London Borough of Haringey
- Mbiusa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd
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
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.