Claimant v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) due to claimant's systematic failure to comply with case management orders, complete failure to provide any evidence including witness statement, deliberate misleading of tribunal, and strategic non-attendance rendering fair hearing impossible. Claimant made no attempt to substantiate serious allegations despite multiple opportunities and extensions.
Claim struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e). Claimant alleged protected disclosure on 27 July 2023 regarding sexual assault and claimed multiple detriments. However, completely failed to provide witness statement, disclosure, or schedule of loss despite case management orders and extensions. Systematic disregard of procedural requirements and deliberate non-attendance made fair hearing impossible.
Claim struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e). Claimant alleged victimisation for doing protected act (informing manager of alleged sexual assault) resulting in various detriments. Complete absence of evidence, no witness statement provided, and claimant's conduct in deliberately misleading tribunal and strategic non-attendance rendered fair determination of allegations impossible.
Facts
Claimant, a Foundation 2 Doctor, alleged sexual harassment on 1 July 2023 when a registrar allegedly touched her bottom without consent. She reported this on 27 July 2023 and claimed subsequent whistleblowing detriment and victimisation through being forced to take leave, prevented from working shifts, receiving negative reference, and delayed commencement of new role. Initially represented by JMW Solicitors who ceased acting January 2025. Claimant systematically failed to comply with case management orders, providing no disclosure, no witness statement, and no schedule of loss despite multiple extensions. On hearing day, claimant falsely claimed three hours' notice of CVP format change (actually three days), raised spurious objections, and failed to attend.
Decision
Tribunal struck out all claims under Rules 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e). Found claimant conducted proceedings unreasonably through systematic disregard of case management orders, complete failure to provide any evidence to support serious allegations, deliberately misleading tribunal about procedural timelines, and strategic non-attendance. Applying Bolch v Chipman four-stage test, tribunal concluded fair hearing no longer possible due to complete absence of evidence, claimant's systematic misconduct, and demonstrated unwillingness to engage properly with proceedings. Claims also substantially out of time with no application for extension.
Practical note
Even serious allegations of sexual harassment and whistleblowing will be struck out where a claimant systematically refuses to provide evidence, deliberately misleads the tribunal, and fails to engage with case management orders, rendering a fair hearing impossible regardless of underlying merits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302579/2024
- Decision date
- 3 August 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Foundation 2 Doctor
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No