DR MANAL HELAL v University of Hertfordshire — 2026

Employment Judge Skehan partly granted the University of Hertfordshire’s application to strike out claims brought by Dr Manal Helal for abuse of process. This judgment decided which allegations could remain in her second claim, not whether discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, victimisation or harassment had occurred. Her employment was ongoing. She presented the First Claim on 23 February 2024, applied to add approximately 45 allegations on 5 August 2024, and received an amendment decision from Employment Judge Cowen on 15 November 2024. She presented the Second Claim on 15 May 2025.

Applying Henderson v Henderson and the approach in Johnson v Gore Wood, the tribunal held that allegations already considered, or which could and should reasonably have been advanced in the earlier proceedings, could not be introduced through the Second Claim. It found no documentary support for the claimant’s submission that Judge Cowen had encouraged her to bring rejected amendments as a new claim. Keeping records of historical allegations on her HR file did not turn them into new or continuing discriminatory acts. The fact that rejected amendments had not been decided on their merits did not answer the abuse-of-process application, because the prejudice from excluding them had already been weighed when amendment was refused.

The direct discrimination complaints concerned age, religion or belief, race and sex. The tribunal struck out allegations 1–12, covering matters including work allocation, grievance handling, research opportunities, meeting records and outreach activities. Those allegations repeated earlier matters or could and should have been clearly raised before Judge Cowen. The disciplinary-procedure allegation was struck out insofar as it arose on or before 15 November 2024; later aspects were not excluded for abuse of process. The allegation concerning investigation of a reported physical interaction was outside the respondent’s application. The alleged assertion of a 100% module failure rate had not been included in either claim and required an amendment application. Further proposed allegations extending to June 2026 also awaited a separate amendment decision.

For whistleblowing detriment, allegations about the disciplinary investigation and procedure predating 15 November 2024 were struck out. Allegations from that date were not struck out for abuse of process, although the claimant needed to identify any later investigation acts and their dates. The tribunal also struck out the alleged June 2023 exclusion from specified teaching modules. The claimant knew that factual background before bringing the First Claim, and the tribunal found that she could and should have brought the detriment complaint then.

For victimisation, the tribunal allowed the complaint about commencement of formal disciplinary proceedings to remain, stating that it postdated the amendment application. It struck out the allegation that Daniel McCluskey endorsed false claims against the claimant because the same factual background had already been advanced as direct discrimination and could have supported a victimisation complaint in the First Claim. A later disciplinary appeal allegation required a separate amendment decision. For harassment related to race and religious belief, alleged comments before 15 November 2024 were struck out; any alleged repetition from that date remained subject to clarification.