Cases2400893/2025

Claimant v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust

6 October 2025Before Employment Judge HolmesManchesterin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claim presented over 8 years out of time. Claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to present within 3 months of dismissal in April 2016, and failed to show the claim was presented within a reasonable time thereafter. No reasonable prospects of success.

Direct Discrimination(age)struck out

Claim presented over 8 years out of time. No reasonable prospect of tribunal extending time on just and equitable basis given length of delay, lack of explanation, and prejudice to respondent. Claimant provided no factual basis for age discrimination claim.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Claim presented over 8 years out of time with no adequate explanation. Claimant failed to establish prima facie case showing treatment was because of race. No reasonable prospects of success on time limits or merits.

Direct Discrimination(sex)struck out

Claim presented over 8 years out of time. No reasonable prospect of extension of time on just and equitable basis. No factual basis provided for sex discrimination claim in claim form.

Direct Discrimination(pregnancy)struck out

Claim presented over 8 years out of time. Claimant made references to being pregnant during TUPE transfer but provided no coherent factual basis for pregnancy discrimination claim. No reasonable prospects of success.

Direct Discrimination(marriage civil partnership)struck out

Claim presented over 8 years out of time. Claimant made vague references to 'discrimination for being single' but no coherent claim. No reasonable prospects of success on time limits or merits.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

Claim presented over 8 years out of time. Whilst claimant has mental and physical health conditions, this did not prevent her bringing earlier tribunal claims in 2014-2015 and appeal to EAT in 2016. No reasonable prospects of extending time or succeeding on merits.

Direct Discrimination(religion)struck out

Claim presented over 8 years out of time. Claimant made references to '5th November' and her 'Indian father' but no coherent factual basis for religion discrimination claim. No reasonable prospects of success.

Whistleblowingstruck out

Claim presented over 8 years out of time. Claimant made no clear allegations of protected disclosures. No reasonable prospect of showing it was not reasonably practicable to present claim within time or that it was presented within reasonable time thereafter.

Breach of Contractstruck out

Notice pay claim presented over 8 years out of time with no adequate explanation for delay. No reasonable prospects of success in extending time.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Arrears of pay and holiday pay claims presented over 8 years out of time. Claimant made confused allegations about overpayments and county court judgment but no coherent unlawful deduction claim. No reasonable prospects of success.

Facts

Claimant was employed by NHS trust as nursing assistant from 1990. Following TUPE transfer to respondent circa 2001, claimant had disputes over flexible working, sickness absence, and pay banding. She brought two previous tribunal claims in 2014 and 2015 relating to these matters. Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 14 April 2016 following disciplinary hearing she did not attend. She did not appeal. She brought current claims on 11 March 2025, nearly 9 years later, stating she had been advised to do so by DWP in connection with PIP application.

Decision

All claims struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. Claims were at least 8 years out of time. Claimant provided no adequate explanation for delay - she had been able to bring tribunal claims in 2014-2015 and appeal to EAT in 2016 despite health issues. No reasonable prospect of tribunal extending time under either 'not reasonably practicable' or 'just and equitable' tests. Additionally, many claims appeared to re-litigate matters from previous tribunal proceedings, constituting abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson.

Practical note

Even where a claimant has disabilities and health issues, delay of 8-9 years in bringing claims will be fatal where the claimant was previously able to bring tribunal proceedings and appeal, and provides no adequate explanation for the very substantial delay beyond being advised by DWP to bring proceedings to support benefits claim.

Legal authorities cited

Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23Keeble v British Coal Corporation [1997] IRLR 336Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434Chohan v Derby Law Centre [2004] IRLR 685London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi [2003] ICR 800Bahl v The Law Society [2004] IRLR 799Henderson v HendersonMesuria v Eurofins Forensic Services Ltd [2025] EAT 103

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.111Limitation Act 1980 s.33EqA 2010 s.136EqA 2010 s.123

Case details

Case number
2400893/2025
Decision date
6 October 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Nursing assistant
Service
26 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No