Case 3305400/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M McLeod v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust R1 CFES Limited R2 Mediplacement R3 — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305400/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M McLeod
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 9 November 2023, Employment Judge Quill considered Claim 1 (3302974/23) and Claim 2 (3305400/23). The claimant confirmed that her June 2023 letter was a withdrawal of the claims against R2 and R3, and the tribunal dismissed those claims upon withdrawal. She also confirmed that neither claim form was intended to advance race discrimination or race-related harassment complaints, so any such complaints were dismissed upon withdrawal for the avoidance of doubt.
The main procedural issue was whether the ACAS early conciliation certificate satisfied section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 for R1, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust. Reading the certificate as a whole, the tribunal held that it named both CFES Ltd and R1. In reaching that conclusion it referred to section 18A, Rules 10, 12 and 6 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, De Mota v ADR Networks, and Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Marcia Clark & Ors, and it noted the abuse-of-process authorities in Virgin Atlantic v Zodiac Seats and Johnson v Gore Wood.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that she had contacted ACAS intending to complain about the NHS trust to which she had been supplied and that she had given enough information for the trust to be identified. It held that the mismatch between the name on the certificate and the ET1 did not justify strike out or rejection, and that the certificate sufficiently identified R1 even though the wording was not exact. R1's applications to strike out Claim 1 and Claim 2 were therefore refused.
On Claim 2, the tribunal rejected the argument that the second claim was an abuse of process. It held that Claim 1 had not been concluded, Claim 2 was brought shortly afterwards and before Claim 1 had been served on R1, and the claimant was a litigant in person attempting to frame the claims properly. The tribunal said any time-limit issues for Claim 2 could be dealt with later and ordered Claims 1 and 2 to be heard together.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim 1 and Claim 2 included unfair dismissal. R1's strike-out applications were refused and the claims were ordered to proceed together. The dismissal upon withdrawal applied to R2 and R3 only. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim 1 and Claim 2 included disability discrimination. R1's strike-out applications were refused and the claims were ordered to proceed together. The dismissal upon withdrawal applied to R2 and R3 only. | Other | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing was referred to in the claim forms and attachment. No merits decision was made at this hearing; R1's strike-out applications were refused and the claims were ordered to proceed together. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was referred to in the claim forms and attachment. No merits decision was made at this hearing; R1's strike-out applications were refused and the claims were ordered to proceed together. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim 1 ticked race by mistake. The tribunal found that no race discrimination complaint was intended or presented and dismissed any such complaint upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found that no race-related harassment complaint was presented and dismissed any such complaint upon withdrawal. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Rule 10
- Rule 12
- Rule 6
- De Mota v ADR Networks
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Marcia Clark & Ors
- Virgin Atlantic v Zodiac Seats
- Johnson v Gore Wood
- Henderson v Henderson
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.