Case 3312520/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Burrell v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312520/2021
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Burrell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Burrell brought claims against Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust alleging disability discrimination, recorded as claims under sections 13, 15 and 21 of the Equality Act. The tribunal considered at a public preliminary hearing whether the claim should be struck out because a fair trial was no longer possible, alongside amendment, limitation and deposit order issues.
The tribunal accepted evidence that two significant witnesses, Ruth Davis and Jeanette Downer, no longer worked for the respondent and were not cooperating with the defence. It also recorded that Tina Saunders, against whom the claimant had made allegations about an incident said to have occurred on 12 August 2019, had left the respondent and had not returned calls. The tribunal found that a significant time had passed since the alleged incidents, most of which were said to have occurred in 2019 or 2020, and that memories would inevitably have faded.
The tribunal also accepted that Ruth Davis had deleted her emails before leaving the respondent and that those documents were no longer available despite efforts to retrieve them, including involving the respondent's Chief Executive and NHS Digital. The tribunal considered whether witness orders would be a lesser option, but found that they would not overcome the problems caused by the passage of time, faded recollections and missing emails.
Having considered Rule 37, the overriding objective, Article 6 ECHR and authorities on strike out, including the need for caution in discrimination claims, the tribunal concluded that there was no longer any prospect of a fair hearing. It struck out the claims under Rule 37(1)(e). No remedy award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records disability discrimination claims under sections 13, 15 and 21 of the Equality Act. The claims were struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(e) because the tribunal considered that a fair hearing was no longer possible. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(e)
- overriding objective
- Article 6 ECHR
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Peixoto v British Telecommunications plc
- Riley v Crown Prosecution Service
- Andreou v The Lord Chancellors Department
- Blockbuster Entertainment Limited v James
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.