Claimant v The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) as the manner in which proceedings were conducted was unreasonable. The second claim overlapped substantially with an existing first claim (case 6004660/2024) covering the same period and events. To the extent the claims were duplicative, this was an abuse of process. To the extent there were new allegations, they could and should have been included in the first claim or added by amendment, making the second claim contrary to the rule in Henderson v Henderson.
Alleged detriments in response to protected disclosures were struck out as part of the same claim. The allegations largely overlapped with detriments already pleaded in the first claim. One additional allegation (dismissive comment by Freedom to Speak Up Ambassador) was not in the first claim but was so closely linked that it should have been included there or added by amendment rather than brought as a separate claim.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent NHS Trust via NHS Professionals as a Personal Assistant between January and April 2024. She brought a first claim in June 2024 alleging whistleblowing detriments, which had progressed through case management with agreed issues, disclosure completed, and witness statements exchanged. In February 2025, she submitted a second claim based on the same employment period and substantially overlapping allegations, including three alleged protected disclosures (two identical to the first claim) and largely duplicative detriments, plus one additional allegation not in the first claim. The claimant did not attend the strike-out hearing.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the second claim under Rule 38(1)(b) for unreasonable conduct of proceedings. The claim was either duplicative of the first claim (amounting to abuse of process) or contained allegations so closely linked to the first claim that they could and should have been included there or added by amendment. Allowing the second claim to proceed would breach the Henderson v Henderson rule and cause unnecessary delay and confusion when the first claim was already trial-ready.
Practical note
Litigants in person must bring all related claims together or amend existing claims rather than filing successive claims covering the same period and events, or risk strike out under the rule in Henderson v Henderson even if some allegations differ.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6006737/2025
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Personal Assistant to the Associate Director of Estates and Facilities
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No