Case 6006737/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Tsungayi Julie Muchemwa v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006737/2025
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrett Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Tsungayi Julie Muchemwa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the public preliminary hearing. After the tribunal clerk attempted to contact her and received no response, the tribunal proceeded in her absence under rule 47 and heard the respondent's application to strike out the second claim.
The tribunal found that the second claim concerned the same period of work and substantially the same events as the claimant's earlier protected disclosure detriment claim. To the extent the second claim duplicated the first, the tribunal found it was an abuse of process; to the extent it raised additional allegations, the tribunal found they could and should have been raised in the first claim or by amendment.
The tribunal concluded that the threshold in rule 38(1)(b) was met and that strike out was an appropriate exercise of discretion. The claim was struck out, with the tribunal noting that the claimant could still litigate the substantive matters in her first claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The second claim was described as a protected disclosure detriment claim and was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(b). The tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of the protected disclosure allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(b)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 47
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd UKEAT/0098/16
- Henderson v Henderson 1843 3 Hare 100
- Johnson v Gore Wood and Co [2002] 2 AC 1
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.