Claimant v NHS Blood and Transplant
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim as an abuse of process and under rule 38(1)(a). The claimant could and should have raised this claim in his earlier proceedings (case 6000958/2023) by amendment or consolidation, particularly as he had already recovered losses associated with his dismissal in the remedy hearing of that case. The tribunal found cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel applied, and it would be unjust harassment of the respondent to allow a second set of proceedings.
The tribunal struck out the s.15 Equality Act claim (discrimination arising from disability) as an abuse of process. Although the claimant argued no s.15 claim had been brought in the first proceedings, the tribunal found he was seeking to piggyback on the findings of the previous tribunal to launch a fresh claim on matters which had come to light before that claim was determined. The claim should have been raised in the earlier proceedings by reasonable diligence.
Facts
The claimant was employed from December 2000 as a Donor Carer and was dismissed on capability grounds on 30 September 2024 after being off sick with Long Covid since November 2020. He had successfully brought an earlier claim (6000958/2023) for failure to make reasonable adjustments relating to a November 2022 job application, with liability determined in July 2024 and remedy in November 2024. He was notified of his dismissal in May 2024 but did not amend his earlier claim or issue a new claim until December 2024, after both the liability and remedy hearings in the first case. At the remedy hearing, he was awarded injury to feelings that reflected his dismissal and loss of earnings following dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim as an abuse of process under the principles of cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and Henderson v Henderson. The claimant could and should have raised the unfair dismissal and s.15 discrimination claims in his earlier proceedings by amendment or consolidation, particularly as he had already recovered losses associated with his dismissal in the remedy hearing. Allowing a second set of proceedings would unjustly harass the respondent and offend the principle of finality in litigation.
Practical note
Claimants must bring forward their whole case in one set of proceedings - they cannot pursue losses arising from dismissal in a first claim and then issue a second claim about the dismissal itself, particularly where they were legally represented and aware of the dismissal before the first proceedings concluded.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6021437/2024
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Donor Carer
- Service
- 24 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister