Case 6015742/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Morley v Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6015742/2024
- Decision date
- 1 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Morley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a private preliminary hearing on 27 May and 1 June 2026, Employment Judge Kelly dismissed Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust’s application to strike out Mr S Morley’s claims or, alternatively, to require deposit orders. The Tribunal did not consider that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success or little reasonable prospect of success. This was a procedural determination; the underlying claims were not finally decided and no remedy was awarded.
The Tribunal lifted the stay imposed on 10 February 2026 and directed that the Dispute Resolution Hearing and final hearing proceed on the dates previously ordered. The claimant clarified that the alleged pressure identified in the existing list of issues concerned encouragement to stand down as convenor when he believed he was entitled to another year, and being told that remaining as convenor would be at band 2 pay only. The judgment records that these matters formed part of the claimant’s case, not findings on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s claims, or alternatively for deposit orders, was dismissed. The underlying claims were not determined at this preliminary hearing and are not identified by legal classification in the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
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.