Claimant v NHS Grampian
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service. There was a clear two-week gap between the end of her previous employment (31 March 2024) and the start of her final employment (15 April 2024), breaking continuity under ERA s.212.
Claim remains live and will proceed to full hearing. The tribunal concluded this claim was sufficiently specified following case management to be capable of proceeding to hearing.
Claim remains live and will proceed to full hearing. The tribunal concluded this claim was sufficiently specified following case management to be capable of proceeding to hearing.
Claim remains live and will proceed to full hearing. The tribunal concluded this claim was sufficiently specified following case management to be capable of proceeding to hearing.
Claim remains live and will proceed to full hearing. Six particular points of claim were identified, though the tribunal noted there was little specification of dates initially.
Application to amend to add this claim was refused. The tribunal found the claim was clearly time-barred as the protected disclosures related to previous employment ending one year before the ET1 was submitted, and there was no good reason to extend jurisdiction.
Application to amend to add this claim was refused. The claim was not in the original ET1 and the claimant gave no reason why it was not included other than being in a hurry and unaware of tribunal process, which the tribunal found insufficient.
Application to amend was refused. Even after multiple attempts to provide specification, the claimant had not set out any protected acts relating to a protected characteristic, only acts relating to whistleblowing about patient care issues.
Facts
The claimant worked for Grampian Health Board as an NC Administrator until 31 March 2024, then commenced new employment with the same employer on 15 April 2024, terminating on 12 December 2024. She brought claims of disability discrimination, constructive dismissal, and sought to amend to add whistleblowing, sex discrimination and victimisation claims. The respondent challenged jurisdiction on the unfair dismissal claim due to insufficient service and resisted the amendments. The case had undergone extensive case management with multiple preliminary hearings and requests for further particulars.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the constructive unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding a two-week gap in employment broke continuity of service. The application to amend to add whistleblowing, sex discrimination and victimisation claims was refused on grounds of time-bar, lack of explanation, and balance of prejudice favouring the respondent. The disability discrimination claims (direct, arising from disability, reasonable adjustments, and harassment) will proceed to full hearing.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants should carefully identify all claims at the outset: tribunals will refuse late amendments where claims are time-barred, insufficiently explained, or would require extensive re-pleading after significant case management work has already been done, especially where viable claims already exist.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000628/2025
- Decision date
- 18 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- NHS Grampian
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- NC Administrator / Porter (bank)
- Service
- 8 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No