Cases3313448/2023

Claimant v London North West University Hospital Healthcare NHS Trust

6 March 2025Before Employment Judge AlliottWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The claimant failed to serve his witness statement by the ordered deadline of 9 January 2025 and was debarred from relying on witness evidence. Despite extensions agreed to 13 and 14 January, he did not serve it until 27 January, two days before the hearing. The tribunal found the breaches were of the greatest magnitude, caused severe prejudice to the respondent who could not take instructions, and made a fair trial impossible.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The claimant never provided a schedule of loss detailing this claim, despite orders requiring it. Without particularisation and without witness evidence, the claim could not proceed fairly.

Holiday Paystruck out

Struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The claim related to accrued annual leave not taken at dismissal but was never properly particularised in a schedule of loss. Combined with the debarring from witness evidence, a fair hearing was impossible.

Whistleblowingstruck out

Struck out for non-compliance. Although the claimant stated he was dismissed for raising patient care concerns, the claim was not formally coded as whistleblowing and was not properly pleaded. The witness statement eventually served appeared to develop this claim substantially, but the respondent had no opportunity to take instructions. The tribunal found this caused great unfairness and made a fair trial impossible.

Facts

The claimant, a Consultant Surgeon employed from May 2018 to June 2023, brought claims of unfair dismissal (allegedly for raising patient care concerns), unauthorised deduction of wages, and holiday pay. He was ordered to exchange witness statements by 9 January 2025 and warned he would be debarred from relying on witness evidence if he failed. Despite extensions to 13 and 14 January following illness (acute laryngitis), he did not serve his statement until 27 January, two days before the full merits hearing. He also never provided a schedule of loss. The respondent applied to strike out the claim.

Decision

The tribunal refused the claimant relief from sanction and struck out all claims under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance. The breaches were of the greatest magnitude: no schedule of loss ever provided, witness statement served 18 days late and only two days before hearing. The respondent had no opportunity to take instructions on what appeared to be a substantially developed whistleblowing case. A fair trial was impossible, and no lesser remedy (adjournment, proceeding without evidence) was proportionate or appropriate.

Practical note

Even a litigant in person with a medical condition will have their claim struck out if non-compliance with tribunal orders makes a fair trial impossible and causes severe prejudice to the opposing party, particularly where there has been ample time to prepare and clear warnings of consequences.

Legal authorities cited

Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) [2022] ICR 327Baber v Royal Bank of Scotland UK EAT 0301/15/JOJBlockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] IRLR 630Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] ICR 371Bharaj v Santander UK Plc [2023] EAT 152

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 30Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 38(1)(c)

Case details

Case number
3313448/2023
Decision date
6 March 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
0.5
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Consultant Surgeon
Service
5 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No