Cases6013543/2024

Claimant v Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

4 November 2025Before Employment Judge HumbleManchesterhybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claim struck out because claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the statutory time limit. Claim was presented 4 months and 24 days late. Claimant's lack of knowledge of time limits and focus on GMC investigation were insufficient reasons. She was an intelligent person who ought to have taken steps to establish relevant time limits.

Otherdismissed on withdrawal

Claimant brought a complaint about failure to respond to grievance adequately. Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint as there was no allegation it was linked to a protected characteristic, whistleblowing, or other statutory basis within tribunal jurisdiction. No valid claim presented.

Otherdismissed on withdrawal

Claimant brought complaint about failure to provide reference by Second Respondent. Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint as there was no allegation it was linked to a protected characteristic or other statutory basis. No valid claim presented.

Facts

Dr Al-Sakkal was a trainee doctor employed by an NHS Trust under a tripartite arrangement. Following an unsuccessful professional review on 24 January 2024, allegedly caused by a report from her educational supervisor (the Second Respondent), she was released from training. Her National Training Number was withdrawn and her employment terminated on 7 February 2024. She raised a grievance which was rejected and attempted to amend her claim to include discrimination allegations relating to race, religion and age, many months after the initial claim.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim as the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the statutory time limit. The claim was nearly 5 months late. The tribunal found no valid claims relating to grievance handling or failure to provide a reference, as these had no statutory basis within tribunal jurisdiction and no protected characteristic was properly pleaded.

Practical note

Claimants must present unfair dismissal claims within strict statutory time limits and mere ignorance of those limits or distraction by other matters will not render late presentation reasonably practicable; complaints about grievance handling and references require an underlying statutory cause of action to engage tribunal jurisdiction.

Legal authorities cited

Balls v Downham Market High School [2011] IRLR 217Selkent Bus v Moore [1996] IRLR 661Aziz v FDA [2010] EWCA Civ 304Mechkarov v Citibank NA [2016] ICR 1121Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch [2019] 6 WLUK 771Reed In Partnership Ltd v Fraine UKEAT/0520/10Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52Marks & Spencer PLC v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470Smith v Pimlico Plumbers UKEAT/0211/19Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 17Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119

Statutes

Equality Act 2010Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 40(1)Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 38(1)ERA 1996 s.111(2)

Case details

Case number
6013543/2024
Decision date
4 November 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
0.5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Resident Doctor in Training
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No