Case 6000958/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr O Hall v NHS Blood and Transplant RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard At - Southampton (By CVP) — 2024

Case reference: 6000958/2023
Decision date: 27 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Self Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr O Hall

Respondent

NHS Blood and Transplant RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard At - Southampton (By CVP)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing at Southampton by CVP before Employment Judge Self on 30 May 2024. The tribunal recorded the case as a disability discrimination claim. The Respondent applied to strike out the Claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success, and also applied for a deposit order on the basis that the Claim had little reasonable prospect of success.

Both applications were refused and dismissed. The judgment does not contain any substantive findings on liability, and there is no merits determination or award. The tribunal instead made case management directions for the final hearing, including increasing the maximum bundle size from 250 pages to 325 pages and limiting the Respondent's witness statement to 6,000 words if it called only one witness.

The judgment also states that the parties considered the timetable in the Case Management Order to remain accurate and that the issues in the case remained as defined in that Order.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary hearing only. The Respondent's applications to strike out the Claim as having no reasonable prospect of success, and for a deposit order on the basis that the Claim had little reasonable prospect of success, were both refused and dismissed. No substantive merits decision is recorded.	Other	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.