Claimant v Barclays Bank UK PLC
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim for public interest disclosure detriment was dismissed on the basis of the rule in Henderson v Henderson, which prevents a party from raising matters that could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings.
The claim for indirect disability discrimination was dismissed on the basis of the rule in Henderson v Henderson, estopping the claimant from bringing claims that should have been raised in previous proceedings.
Three specific allegations of direct disability discrimination were dismissed under the Henderson v Henderson rule (delay of disciplinary hearing, wrong accusations on 26 June 2023, and withdrawal of laptop access on 9 August 2024). However, other direct disability discrimination claims identified in section 47 of the Case Summary were not dismissed and remain to be determined.
Four specific allegations of discrimination arising from disability were dismissed under the Henderson v Henderson rule (downgrading of annual review score in 2023-2024, completion of review during sickness absence in January 2024, redundancy selection based on affected performance reviews, and the disciplinary process from May 2023 to November 2024). However, other section 15 claims identified in section 47 of the Case Summary were not dismissed and remain to be determined.
Facts
The claimant, Ms Muka, brought claims against Barclays Bank relating to disability discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, and various allegations concerning disciplinary proceedings, redundancy selection, performance reviews, and treatment during sickness absence. The allegations span from 2023 to 2024, including claims about annual review scoring, redundancy selection based on performance affected by disability, disciplinary proceedings from May 2023 to November 2024, and withdrawal of laptop access in August 2024.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed several of the claimant's claims on the basis of the rule in Henderson v Henderson, finding the claimant was estopped from bringing them as they could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings. These included all whistleblowing and indirect discrimination claims, and specific allegations of direct discrimination and discrimination arising from disability. However, some disability discrimination claims identified in section 47 of the Case Summary were not dismissed and will proceed.
Practical note
The Henderson v Henderson rule can be a powerful procedural tool for respondents to strike out claims that attempt to re-litigate issues or raise matters that could have been brought in earlier tribunal proceedings, even where claimants are unrepresented.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301898/2025
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No