Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Case Summary

The Employment Tribunal struck out the claimant's whistleblowing detriment claims on the basis that the claims were estopped due to a previous judicial dismissal of related claims.

The tribunal struck out the claims because the claimant was estopped from bringing them due to a previous judicial dismissal of related claims, meaning the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.

• •whether the claimant is estopped from bringing the claims due to previous judicial dismissal

Case Numbers: 3204536/21 and 3205965/21 mf EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Dr Sara Ajaz Respondent: Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (Open) by video (CVP) On: 15 March 2022 – Reserved decision (in chambers) 23 March 2022 and 12 April 2022 Before: Employment Judge Elgot Representation Claimant: Mr S Brittenden, counsel Respondent: Ms B Criddle, counsel The Employment Judge having reserved her decision now gives judgment as follows:- JUDGMENT AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING 1. The application by the Respondent to strike out each of the conjoined claims in case numbers 3204536/21 issued on 25 May 2021 and 3205965/21 issued on 17 September 2021 SUCCEEDS on the ground that the Claimant is estopped from bringing the claims and a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear them. 2. It has therefore not been necessary to determine the Claimant’s application to amend the Grounds of Claim in case number 3204536/21. REASONS 1. I had the benefit during this preliminary hearing, held remotely by video, of hearing detailed written and oral submissions on the primary applications from both counsel. This open preliminary hearing to consider strike out was ordered by Employment Judge Klimov on 29 November 2021 before whom the Respondent’s 2 argument that the claims in these proceedings have already been finally compromised and/or that they have no reasonable or little prospect of success was rehearsed. 2. As a result of a very recent EAT decision by HH Judge Auerbach named Clark v Middleton (1) and Black Dog Hydrotherapy Ltd (2) [2022] EAT 31 (the Clark case) which was brought to my attention by the Respondent’s solicitor on 23 March 2022, the date of promulgation by the EAT, I invited both parties to send supplementary submissions to me …