CX v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2026

All claims in Case No. 6029721/2025 were struck out. The Tribunal held that the dismissal-related failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability claims were barred by cause of action estoppel and that bringing them again was an abuse of process. The other claims were struck out under the principle in Henderson v Henderson. No monetary award was made.

The Claimant had previously applied to amend her first claim to add failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability claims relating to her dismissal. That application was refused by Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst, and the Claimant's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was unsuccessful. The Tribunal found that the principal disability claims in the second proceedings were essentially the same: they alleged that dismissal should have been delayed or avoided while adjustments, workplace support, absence management and further Occupational Health steps were considered. An issue necessary to presenting those claims had therefore been finally determined, notwithstanding that their merits had not been adjudicated.

The Tribunal rejected the contention that documents disclosed during the March 2025 hearing materially changed the Claimant's knowledge. Although the 14 October 2021 Occupational Health referral and the 26 November 2021 Optima Health email revealed that the wrong referral type had been used and no further action had followed, the Claimant already knew that she had been referred and had not received another appointment before dismissal. The Tribunal also found no link between the later discovery that Governor Frost's hard-copy dismissal bundle had not been retained and the proposed disability discrimination claims.

As to the August 2021 Occupational Health recommendations, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had received the report before dismissal and knew that its recommended adjustments had not been made. She could have raised those matters in her original claim or amendment application. The same applied to the written warning, the allegation that the Occupational Health report was not considered, and the absence of a further referral before dismissal. The Tribunal concluded that these were matters which could and should have been raised in the earlier proceedings.

The vaccination-belief claim concerned two emails describing the Claimant as refusing vaccination. The Tribunal found that documents from the first proceedings had repeatedly connected her vaccination decision with her vegan beliefs and that, insofar as she now relied on mental-health-related concerns arising from her family history, she was describing a personal decision based on personal circumstances rather than a philosophical belief. It also found that the relevant factual complaint had been raised in the particulars of the first claim or could have been pursued by an amendment during the March 2025 hearing. That claim was therefore also caught by the Henderson v Henderson principle.