Claimant v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Amendment allowed to clarify unfair dismissal claim already pleaded in claim form. Case to proceed to full merits hearing on whether dismissal for long-term sickness absence was fair.
Amendment refused because the proposed PCP (application of sickness absence policy) was not specified in a form the respondent could sensibly respond to, despite extensive case management. Claimant has other claims with similar factual ambit she can pursue.
Amendment allowed as clarification of existing claim. Claim alleges dismissal was due to absences caused by disabilities including hypertension caused by workplace stress. Has same factual compass as unfair dismissal claim and is capable of being understood and responded to.
Withdrawn by claimant following legal advice from Equality and Employment Law Centre.
Withdrawn by claimant following legal advice from Equality and Employment Law Centre.
Withdrawn by claimant following legal advice from Equality and Employment Law Centre.
Withdrawn by claimant following legal advice from Equality and Employment Law Centre.
Withdrawn by claimant following legal advice. Claimant understood she could not keep litigating the same matters already determined in claim 1.
Withdrawn by claimant following legal advice. Claimant understood she could not keep litigating the same matters already determined in claim 1.
Withdrawn by claimant following legal advice from Equality and Employment Law Centre.
Withdrawn by claimant following legal advice from Equality and Employment Law Centre.
Facts
Claimant was employed as an apprentice A&E coordinator from May 2019 and went on long-term sick leave from February 2020, never returning to work. She brought her first claim in April 2022 about sick pay during shielding. She was dismissed in January 2024 due to long-term sickness absence after numerous occupational health assessments. She brought further claims in June and August 2024 about her dismissal and disability discrimination. The central dispute is whether the respondent could have allowed her to work from home as a reasonable adjustment.
Decision
Tribunal struck out application for abuse of process and refused some amendments, but allowed amendment to pursue unfair dismissal and section 15 discrimination arising from disability claims. Tribunal found second EC certificate was effective to extend time as dismissal was a different 'matter' than original claim. Reasonable adjustments claim struck out as not pleaded in a form respondent could sensibly respond to.
Practical note
An Acas EC certificate can extend time for claims about dismissal that occurs nearly two years after the original claim if the dismissal constitutes a different 'matter', and it is not an abuse of process for a litigant in person to bring fresh claims about dismissal rather than urgently amending existing proceedings.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6003571/2024
- Decision date
- 12 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- apprentice A and E coordinator
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No