Case 6013543/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr May Al-Sakkal v Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013543/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Dr May Al-Sakkal
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Humble determined this preliminary hearing on whether the claims should be struck out. The claimant was employed by the first respondent NHS Trust through a tripartite training arrangement, and her employment terminated on 7 February 2024 following loss of her training number after an unsuccessful professional review. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of establishing it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the s.111(2) ERA 1996 statutory time limit. The claim against the second respondent had no reasonable prospect of success because he was not the claimant's employer. The tribunal found no other valid claims before it: the freestanding complaints about handling of the grievance and failure to provide a reference are not within the tribunal's jurisdiction. Late references in the claimant's correspondence to discrimination based on race, religion or age did not constitute a valid amendment application, and even if treated as one, leave would not have been granted given the long delay and lack of particularisation. The claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent struck out: no reasonable prospect of establishing it was not reasonably practicable to present within statutory time limit. As against the second respondent (not the employer) the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaints regarding failure to respond to grievance and failure to provide a reference: tribunal had no jurisdiction. Late attempt to amend claim form to add discrimination on race, religion or belief and age was not a valid application; in any event leave to amend would not have been granted under Selkent principles. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch
- Reed In Partnership Ltd v Fraine
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52
- Marks & Spencer PLC v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College [2011] IRLR 217
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA [2016] ICR 1121
- Aziz v FDA [2010] EWCA Civ 304
- Selkent Bus v Moore [1996] IRLR 661
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.