Mrs J Hill v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2023

The judgment concerned the respondent's application to strike out most or all of the claim at a preliminary stage. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim form and later particulars used legal terms such as discrimination and harassment, but did not adequately identify which incidents were pursued as legal claims or how each incident related to each legal cause of action. Attempts through further particulars and preliminary hearings had not produced a workable list of issues.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was a disabled person, that English was not her first language, and that she was a vulnerable litigant. It found that the claimant, respondent and tribunal had all sought to progress the case, and that the delay was not deliberate or contumelious. However, it found that the lack of progress was the claimant's responsibility because she was not equipped to explain or frame a claim of the scope she wished to bring, despite adjustments and prior case management.

The tribunal found inordinate and inexcusable delay in the non-dismissal claims. It considered that the discrimination and similar claims could not realistically be ascertained in the near future, that there was a substantial risk that a fair hearing was impossible, and that the respondent would suffer serious prejudice, including from the age and uncertain scope of the allegations and the departure of significant witnesses. It did not accept that missing documents formed part of the prejudice.

The tribunal struck out all claims except unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. It allowed the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims to continue because they did not require the same particularisation, arose from the later dismissal process, and posed much less risk to a fair trial or prejudice to the respondent. The wrongful dismissal claim was limited to the allegation that dismissal without notice breached the contract of employment.