Case 3320767/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Malekela v West London Mental Health Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 3320767/2019
- Decision date
- 14 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Malekela
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 12 June 2021, the tribunal gave Ms B Malekela an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out. The stated grounds were that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, and that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal’s orders made at the hearing of 18 December 2020, sent to the parties on 11 January 2021, including an apparent failure to disclose relevant documents as required by paragraph 6.
The claimant did not make written representations to the tribunal, and comments made to the respondent’s representative by or on behalf of the claimant were found insufficient to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No hearing was requested. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37, and recorded that the hearing listed for 12 to 14 July 2021 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type(s); it records only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.