Case 6003571/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Barcker v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003571/2024
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Barcker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing about the claimant's amendment application and the respondent's strike-out application. The tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal claim was already in the second claim form, or that any amendment should be allowed because it clarified the issues arising from dismissal for long-term sickness absence.
The tribunal refused the proposed reasonable adjustments amendment based on the sickness absence policy because it was not in a form to which the respondent could sensibly respond. It also concluded that any reasonable adjustments complaint based on a requirement to work at the respondent's premises could and should have been pursued in the earlier proceedings, and struck out matters not contained in the list of issues.
The tribunal allowed the section 15 disability discrimination amendment, including reliance on additional impairments, and refused to strike out the dismissal-related claims as an abuse of process, out of time, or as having no reasonable prospects. It found that whether the claimant could have been redeployed to work not requiring office attendance was a central factual dispute for trial.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found no amendment was needed, or alternatively allowed the amendment, and refused to strike out this claim on abuse of process, time limit and merits grounds. No final merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The section 15 Equality Act discrimination arising from disability amendment was allowed, including reliance on further impairments of hypertension, stress, alopecia and a thyroid condition. Strike out was refused; no final merits determination was made. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments amendment based on the sickness absence policy was refused. The reasonable adjustments complaint based on being required to work at the respondent's premises was struck out as a matter which could and should have been pursued earlier. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant's application identified direct age discrimination as withdrawn. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant's application identified direct sex discrimination as withdrawn. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Henderson v Henderson
- Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
- Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills
- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Twist DX Limited v Armes
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Herry v Dudley MBC
- Transport and General Workers' Union v Safeway Stores Ltd
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
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.