Claimant v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim was presented on 18 October 2023 while claimant was still employed (employment ended December 2023). Under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, Tribunal only has jurisdiction over breach of contract claims presented within three months of termination. Claim filed before termination means Tribunal has no jurisdiction, as confirmed in Capek v Lincolnshire CC.
Multiple allegations of race-related harassment remain live, including allegation 14(e) concerning an email describing allegations as 'individually innocuous'. Tribunal found this allegation too nuanced and context-specific to strike out or order deposit. An allegation regarding delay in responding to grievance (26 September 2023) was arguably in time.
Allegations of disability-related harassment remain live, including an allegation regarding delay in responding to claimant's grievance lodged 22 September 2022 but not resolved until 26 September 2023, which was arguably within the primary time limit.
Respondent sought to strike out all victimisation claims as out of time (alleged detriments in September 2022, claim filed October 2023). Tribunal refused, finding it was at least arguable that the victimisation allegations formed part of continuing conduct ending with the in-time harassment allegation (delay in grievance resolution). Strong factual connection as both related to consequences of raising grievance.
Facts
Claimant, an employee of NHS Trust, brought claims while still employed in October 2023 including breach of contract, race and disability harassment, and victimisation. His employment subsequently ended in December 2023. He had raised a grievance in September 2022 which was not resolved until September 2023. The Second Respondent was his line manager who had raised concerns about his practice and restricted his duties. Most alleged acts of discrimination occurred in September 2022, well before the claim was filed.
Decision
Tribunal struck out the breach of contract claim as it had been filed before employment ended, meaning the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under the 1994 Extension Order. Respondent's application to strike out harassment and victimisation claims was largely dismissed. The tribunal found the victimisation claims were arguably part of continuing conduct ending with an in-time harassment allegation (delay in grievance resolution), and that context-specific harassment allegations could not be struck out without hearing evidence.
Practical note
A breach of contract claim in the employment tribunal must be filed after employment has terminated; filing during employment (even after notice is given) deprives the tribunal of jurisdiction, unlike unfair dismissal claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2305901/2023
- Decision date
- 9 June 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No