Case 3311255/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Mafuta v North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311255/2023
- Decision date
- 13 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Mafuta
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Mafuta's Claim 2, presented on 28 September 2023, included complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract for lack of notice, both pleaded on the basis of an alleged constructive dismissal with an effective date of termination of 27 June 2023. The tribunal recorded that any and all other complaints in Claim 2 had been withdrawn on 21 March 2024 and were dismissed on withdrawal.
The respondent argued that Claim 2 was an abuse of process because of the earlier claim numbered 3300551/2023 and the orders and judgments made in that case at a public preliminary hearing on 5 July 2023. Employment Judge Quill held that it was not an abuse of process to present the complaints in paragraph 1, and that Claim 2 was not struck out as an abuse of process.
This judgment does not record any merits determination of the unfair dismissal or breach of contract complaints and does not record any monetary award. It is limited to the procedural ruling that Claim 2 could proceed and was not struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented on 28 September 2023 as part of Claim 2; pleaded as unfair dismissal based on an alleged constructive dismissal with effective date of termination 27 June 2023. The tribunal held only that the claim was not struck out as an abuse of process; no merits decision is recorded in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Presented on 28 September 2023 as part of Claim 2; pleaded as breach of contract for lack of notice, based on an alleged constructive dismissal with effective date of termination 27 June 2023. The tribunal held only that the claim was not struck out as an abuse of process; no merits decision is recorded in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- abuse of process
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.