Whittington Health NHS Trust
Case Summary
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was not struck out, but his discrimination claim based on professional qualifications was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found the claimant's non-compliance was due to a misunderstanding of the tribunal process rather than being contumelious.
Key Issues
- •strike out application
- •non-compliance with tribunal rules and orders
- •inability to actively pursue case
Claim Types
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was not struck out, but his discrimination claim
Decision Text
Case Number:3322433/21 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent v Jonathan Manuel Whittington Health NHS Trust Heard at: Watford On: 15 August 2022 Before: Employment Judge Anderson Appearances For the Claimant: In Person For the Respondent: I Bayliss (counsel) JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is not struck out. 2. No order for costs is made. 3. The claimant’s claim for discrimination is dismissed as the employment tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to discrimination on the basis of professional qualifications. REASONS Strike Out 1. The respondent brought an application to strike out the claimant’s claim on 25 May 2022 following the claimant’s failure to comply with orders to file a schedule of loss, provide details of any discrimination claim or to respond to its emails chasing these matters of 12, 16 and 24 May 2022. The application is brought under rule 371c and d of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 schedule 1. These grounds are that the claimant has not compiled with rules or orders of the tribunal and not actively pursued his case. 2. Ms Bayliss, for the respondent, said the claim had not been actively pursued and the claimant’s lack of action was both intentional and contumelious. From his evidence the claimant had clearly read the Notice of Hearing as he knew the dates and understood what a schedule of loss was. She said that he had intentionally not followed the directions and in so doing had Case Number:3322433/21 2 made an unreasonable choice. On his own evidence the claimant had decided not to respond to the respondent as he does not like it and this was not a professional or adult way to behave. Ms Bayliss said his actions had increased the cost of the claim to the t...
Employer
Case Details
- Case Number
- 3322433/2021
- Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal
- Level
- First instance
- Decision Date
- 06/06/2023
- Published
- 14/07/2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson