East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust

Case Summary

The claimant, a nurse employed by the respondent NHS trust since July 2021, presented a claim in December 2024. The respondent applied to strike out the claim alleging non-compliance with a tribunal order requiring particularisation of the claim and that the claim was not being actively pursued. Employment Judge MJ Smith refused the strike out application.

The tribunal refused the strike out application. While the judgment text is incomplete in the provided extract, the refusal indicates the tribunal did not find sufficient grounds under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with the order or under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim.

• •Application to strike out claim under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with tribunal order
• •Application to strike out claim under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue claim
• •Claimant's failure to attend preliminary hearing and provide particularised claim details
• •Claimant's personal circumstances including childcare issues, bereavement and mental health

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms C Garcia Respondent: East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust Heard at: Cambridge via video On: 23 February 2026 Before: Employment Judge MJ Smith Appearances For the claimant: In person For the respondent: Mr Carl Rix (counsel) JUDGMENT 1. The application to strike out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) is refused. REASONS Introduction 2. The claimant has been employed as a nurse in the Ophthalmology department by the respondent, an NHS trust, since 5 July 2021 and she is still employed by the respondent. Early conciliation started on 6 December 2024 and ended on 10 December 2024. The claim form was presented on 12 December 2024. The claimant remains employed by the respondent. 2 3. The response was presented on 10 January 2025 in which the respondent stated that the claim was insufficiently detailed. The respondent defends the claim. 4. A preliminary hearing was listed on 4 June 2025 for all parties to attend. The claimant sent an email to the Tribunal on the evening of 3 June 2025, not copying in the respondent, in which she stated that she would not be able to attend the hearing the following day due to a lack of childcare and requesting a postponement of the hearing. This email was forwarded to the respondent by the Tribunal. 5. The respondent attended the hearing on 4 June 2025 before Employment Judge Anderson. A number of orders and directions were made including for the claimant to provide evidence of the reasons for her non-attendance and to provide more information about her claim. The order contained a warning to the claimant about the possibility of a costs order and/or her claim being struck out. The order was sent to all parties on 11 August 2025. 6. In the interim, the respondent had made attempts to contact the claimant and resolve issues in advance of the prelimin…