Cases3301719/2024

Claimant v Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

28 March 2025Before Employment Judge TynanCambridgein person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

The tribunal struck out the claim finding it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge concluded that the claimant's conduct of proceedings, including gratuitous references to race and attributing racial motives to any disagreeable matters, struck at the heart of her credibility and her claim. The tribunal found her allegations against the respondent were unfounded for the same reasons she made unfounded racial allegations against judges and legal representatives.

Facts

The claimant brought race discrimination claims against an NHS Trust. At a preliminary hearing on 4 October 2024 and again on 27 March 2025, the claimant conducted herself in a disruptive, abusive and belligerent manner, shouting at the judge, making gratuitous references to race, accusing the judge and others of lying, racism and conspiracy, and creating a hostile environment. The claimant made unfounded allegations that white/Caucasian judges were conspiring against her as a Nigerian/African claimant. The tribunal found her conduct scandalous and unreasonable, and that she refused to moderate her behaviour despite warnings.

Decision

Employment Judge Tynan struck out the claim on two grounds: the claimant's scandalous and unreasonable conduct made a fair trial impossible, and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge found the claimant was pre-occupied with race and immediately attributed racial motives to anything disagreeable to her, striking at the heart of her credibility and her discrimination claims against the respondent.

Practical note

A claim may be struck out where a claimant's persistent abusive and disruptive conduct demonstrates both that a fair trial is impossible and that their tendency to immediately attribute racial motives to any adverse treatment undermines the credibility of their discrimination allegations.

Legal authorities cited

Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] EWCA Civ 684Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] IRLR 96Venice v Southwark London Borough Council [2002] ICR 881ET Marler Ltd v Robertson [1974] ICR 72Attorney General v Barker [2001] FLR 759

Statutes

Rule 38(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024

Case details

Case number
3301719/2024
Decision date
28 March 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No