Case 3332712/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3332712/2018
- Decision date
- 4 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Sitting
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary strike-out hearing in long-running combined proceedings about the Oxford Doctoral Course in Clinical Psychology. The claimant did not attend and had not filed a witness statement for the hearing. The tribunal therefore accepted the respondents' witness evidence, and recorded that the claimant had repeatedly tried to apply directly to the Trust rather than through the Clearing House process, despite being told on multiple occasions that applications to the Course had to be made through Clearing House and that any access difficulties or adjustments should be raised there.
On employment status, the tribunal found that the claimant had never been an employee or worker of the first respondent, so whistleblowing claims against Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust could not proceed on that basis. It also found that the Employment Rights Act 1996 (NHS Recruitment - Protected Disclosure) Regulations 2018/579 came into force only on 23 May 2018, after the claim was presented, and therefore did not assist the claimant. The tribunal accepted that, had he been properly accepted onto the Course, he would have been an employee, but held that the University of Oxford, Harris Manchester College, Health Education England and the Trust were not employment service providers for s.55 Equality Act 2010 purposes in relation to the Course.
The tribunal struck out the remaining Part 5 Equality Act claims because the claimant had not made a valid application through the proper process and had not shown any arguable basis for discriminatory treatment, harassment, victimisation, or a reasonable adjustments claim. It found no basis for a disability-related substantial disadvantage, no identified adjustment request, and no realistic prospect of liability for the other respondents under ss.109 to 112 Equality Act 2010 because none of them had been involved in rejecting any properly made application. Claims linked to the 2018 Research Assistant application and any graduate-entry medicine allegations were also held to be abusive and/or caught by cause of action estoppel.
On time limits, the tribunal held that the last relevant Course rejection was 10 November 2017, so the claim issued on 4 May 2018 was late even after the 31-day ACAS early conciliation period. It also found no evidence that it had been not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and no basis on which it would be just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal concluded that all claims were totally without merit and made no deposit order or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | All whistleblowing claims against the first and second respondents were struck out and dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that the claimant had never been an employee or worker of the first respondent, that the 2018 NHS Recruitment Protected Disclosure Regulations came into force after the claim was presented, and that any later Trust application had not been made through the correct Clearing House process. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The remaining Part 5 Equality Act 2010 claims were struck out on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success and, alternatively, because they were out of time and/or abusive. The tribunal treated the claimant's repeated direct applications to the Oxford Doctoral Course in Clinical Psychology as not being proper applications because the correct route was via Clearing House, found no basis for an employment service-provider claim under s.55, held that any disability-related reasonable adjustments case failed because no substantial disadvantage or specific adjustment was identified, and ruled that the 2018 Research Assistant application and any graduate-entry medicine allegations were caught by cause of action estoppel or abuse of process. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- Blackwood v Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
- Tyagi v World Service
- Cast v Croydon College
- Okoro v Woodrow
- Arnold and others v National Westminster Bank Plc (No. 1)
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Caston v Lincolnshire Police
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker
- May & Baker Ltd (t/a Sanofi-Aventis Pharma) v Okerage
- Mallon v AECOM Limited
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
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.