Case 3312879/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 3312879/2020
Decision date: 11 April 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Alliott
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was an open preliminary hearing on amendment, strike-out and deposit. The claimant, in person, was allowed to amend his claim to add race discrimination, a victimisation allegation concerning the 4 February 2021 NMC referral, and notice pay. Applying Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore, the tribunal accepted that the amendment was 18 days out of time if time ran from 22 March 2021, but it extended time on a just and equitable basis because the claimant had acted within time, the new allegation arose from the same witness and evidential ground, and referral to a professional regulator was a serious matter that should be explored.

The respondent's strike-out application was dismissed. On the first race discrimination allegation, arising from the 16 July 2020 fire-safety issue and written warning, the tribunal could not conclude that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and said the matter needed to be examined by a full tribunal. The judge referred to Ahir v British Airways Plc and noted that discrimination claims are fact sensitive.

A deposit order was made in part for the allegations concerning the events of 6 and 7 September 2020 and the amended claims. The tribunal considered those allegations had little reasonable prospect of success because the complaint against the claimant was supported by the care worker, a fellow nurse and, to some extent, the paramedics' account, although it did not say there was no reasonable prospect of success. Taking the claimant's means into account, including work of about two shifts per week at £300 weekly, potential earnings of about £750 weekly if working full time, monthly rent of £600 and savings of £911, the tribunal set the deposit at £500 payable within three weeks.

The claims against the second respondent, Brighter Kind, in case 3315484/20, were dismissed upon withdrawal. The separate whistleblowing claims about being asked to work night shifts and being referred to occupational health in September 2020 were also dismissed upon withdrawal. No final merits determination was made at this hearing.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Strike-out was refused on the allegation arising from the 16 July 2020 fire-safety incident and written warning; no final merits finding was made at this hearing.	Other	Race	—
Whistleblowing	The claims for detriment for making a protected disclosure arising out of being requested to work night shifts and being referred to occupational health in September 2020 were dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Whistleblowing	The tribunal granted a deposit order in part on the allegations concerning 6 and 7 September 2020, including being required to remain at work and the allegation about a resident who had fallen; the merits were not determined.	Other	—	—
Race discrimination	Permission to amend was granted to add a race discrimination claim arising from the 4 February 2021 NMC referral; the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis, but did not determine the merits.	Other	Race	—
Victimisation	Permission to amend was granted to add a victimisation allegation arising from the 4 February 2021 NMC referral; the judgment described the point in mixed terms, but the merits were not determined.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.