Claimant v NHS England
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal allowed the claim to proceed, limited to five protected disclosures detailed in the respondent's list of issues (two from the original claim form and three from a March 2024 letter), plus additional detriments added at this hearing.
Multiple alleged detriments due to whistleblowing were allowed to proceed, including grievances 10, 110, 200, 211, 213, 300, and 301 from the claimant's v5 list of issues, in addition to matters already in the respondent's list of issues.
The claimant's v5 list of issues alleged direct disability discrimination in relation to most grievances. The tribunal has allowed the case to proceed but warned the claimant about the need to provide further particulars if requested.
The tribunal added one claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments to the list of issues based on the claimant's v5 list, though noted the claimant's legal classifications were often misconceived and many matters were incorrectly categorised.
The claimant alleged indirect discrimination in his v5 list of issues. The tribunal criticised the legal classifications as misconceived, noting the same matter cannot sensibly be both a PCP (applied generally) and specific detriment for whistleblowing.
Facts
The claimant brought whistleblowing and discrimination claims against NHS England. The respondent applied to strike out the claims based on the claimant's unreasonable and scandalous conduct, including threatening and accusatory correspondence to tribunal staff, respondent's staff, and solicitors, failure to comply with tribunal orders regarding agreeing a list of issues, and insistence on a 282-page (later 168-page) list of issues created using AI which he admitted was 90% unnecessary. The claimant had originally brought a relatively concise claim referencing two whistleblowing instances from 2013 and 2015, but sought to expand this massively through subsequent amendments.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the strike-out application, finding that while the claimant's conduct was unreasonable and scandalous (including accusations that respondent staff were trying to get him to commit suicide and that the tribunal was protecting criminals), it was not vexatious as he was genuinely seeking redress. A fair hearing was still possible if the tribunal adopted the respondent's list of issues limited to five protected disclosures, with some additional detriments (grievances 10, 110, 200, 211, 213, 300, 301) added. The judge gave an express warning about future costs consequences and made clear that further non-cooperation could lead to strike-out.
Practical note
Even highly unreasonable and scandalous conduct by a litigant in person will not lead to strike-out if a fair hearing remains possible through case management, but tribunals will impose strict limits on claims and warn about costs where a claimant refuses to engage constructively with the process.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2304017/2023
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- NHS England
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No