Whittington Health NHS Trust

Case Summary

The claimant brought claims of sex discrimination, race discrimination and victimisation arising from job rejections and grievance outcomes against her NHS Trust employer. The respondent applied to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success on the basis that conduct predating 12 April 2024 could not form part of a continuing act extending to that date or later. Employment Judge George refused the strike out application, finding there was a realistic possibility that the pleaded case might be developed to establish the required temporal connection.

The tribunal found that the claimant's pleaded case had not been fully developed and there remained a realistic possibility that it could be fleshed out to establish a continuing act linking the older job rejections to the more recent grievance outcomes. The tribunal declined to engage in too much detailed analysis of the underlying evidence at the strike out stage, which would require determining the likelihood of the claimant proving her case on the merits.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether the claimant has reasonable prospects of establishing that conduct prior to 12 April 2024 was part of conduct extending over a period which ended on or after 12 April 2024
• •Time limits for discrimination and victimisation claims under the Equality Act 2010
• •Whether there is a continuing act linking older job rejections to more recent grievance decisions
• •Just and equitable extension of time for out-of-time complaints

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms M Kolade Respondent: Whittington Health NHS Trust Heard at: Reading Employment Tribunal (by video) On: 16 January 2026 Before: Employment Judge George Representation Claimant: No attendance (having been given notice of the hearing) Respondent: Ms. S Firth, counsel JUDGMENT ON STRIKE OUT APPLICATION The respondent’s application to strike out the claim on the basis that, having regard to the statutory time limits, the claimant has no reasonable prospect of showing that the conduct about which she complains prior to 12 April 2024 was part of conduct extending over a period which ended on or after 12 April 2024 is refused. REASONS 1. In circumstances where the claimant was not present and not represented at the hearing, although I gave oral reasons at the hearing for my decision to refuse the respondent’s application to strike out the claim, I volunteer full written reasons so that the claimant and her representative may understand the reasons for the decision. The circumstances which led to me proceeding in the claimant’s absence are explained in the record of preliminary hearing which accompanies this judgment. 2. I had available to me a preliminary hearing file prepared by the respondent (referred to as pages 1 to 453); a statement of Ms. Wilshire for the respondent; the respondent’s skeleton argument (RSKEL) and the claimant’s written submissions (CSUB). I heard oral argument from Ms. Firth for the respondent. I also had available the claimant’s postponement application (with supporting documentation) and some documents which had been provided separately to the hearing file: an outcome letter dated 18 January 2021; an email dated 18 January 2 2022 and the respondent’s appeals policy. 3. Ms. Firth described the issues that I have to consider today on the respondent’s application in this way: a.…