Case 3305562/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Veronica Davies v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305562/2020
- Decision date
- 24 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Veronica Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Tynan struck out Ms Davies's complaints that Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust discriminated against her on grounds of age, race, disability and sex. The tribunal did so under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure on the basis that those complaints had no reasonable prospects of success.
The judgment records that although the ET1 indicated age, race, disability and sex complaints, it remained unclear that Ms Davies intended actively to pursue such complaints. The preliminary hearing bundle gave no indication that she had raised discrimination concerns during employment. The tribunal recorded that she asserted racism was rife at the respondent but gave no details of why she said she had been discriminated against, or why alleged harassment and intimidation related to any protected characteristic.
On disability, the tribunal recorded that the ET3 did not identify any health condition or disability relied upon, and that Ms Davies had completed the ET1 on the basis that she did not have a disability. The tribunal referred to her son's mental health crisis in June 2020 as occurring some months after her dismissal, and to work-related stress in 2018 and low mood linked to the menopause during her appeal, but said neither was identified as a condition with significant long-term effects. The judge noted that strike-out of discrimination complaints is only exceptionally appropriate where central facts are in dispute, but concluded that Ms Davies had not provided even the most basic facts to identify what was in dispute and remained unable to articulate why she might have been discriminated against.
The tribunal also struck out the claim to a redundancy payment. It recorded that Ms Davies did not suggest her role was redundant, did not seemingly challenge the respondent's stated reasons for dismissal as conduct and/or performance, even if she disputed that it acted fairly, and had not advanced an explanation for why she might be eligible to a statutory redundancy payment. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success; the judgment records that the claimant had not provided basic facts identifying why she said she was discriminated against on protected-characteristic grounds. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success; the judgment records that the claimant asserted racism was rife at the respondent but gave no details of why she said she was discriminated against or why alleged harassment and intimidation related to race or another protected characteristic. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success; the judgment records that the claimant had not identified a disability relied upon, had completed the ET1 on the basis that she did not have a disability, and the identified health matters were not identified as conditions with significant long-term effects. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success; the judgment records that the claimant had not provided basic facts supporting a sex discrimination complaint or explaining why alleged treatment was related to a protected characteristic. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success; the judgment records that the claimant did not suggest her role was redundant and gave no explanation for eligibility to a statutory redundancy payment. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.