Claimant v NHS North East London Integrated Care Board
Outcome
Individual claims
First claim (6006836/2024) relating to disability discrimination during a recruitment process. The preliminary hearing dealt with procedural applications only and did not determine the substantive merits of the claim.
Second claim (6011580/2024) relating to race discrimination concerning treatment within the workplace. The tribunal refused the respondents' strike-out application on the basis that this was not an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson and did not have no reasonable prospects of success.
Second claim (6011580/2024) also included disability discrimination claims relating to treatment within the workplace. The tribunal refused strike-out, noting that discrimination cases are fact-sensitive and taking the claimant's case at its highest there was no basis for strike out.
Allegations at paragraph 73 of the second claim particulars alleged the claimant was criticised unfairly despite her explanations. The tribunal refused strike-out, stating this did not have no reasonable prospect of success and was a question of evidence and fact.
Referenced at paragraphs 52-54 of the second claim particulars, complaining that previous recommendations had not been implemented. The tribunal did not determine time limits but drew attention to the approach in reasonable adjustments cases.
Facts
The claimant brought two claims: the first (July 2024) against NHS North East London ICB relating to disability discrimination in a recruitment process; the second (September 2024) against the same organisation plus two individual respondents relating to race and disability discrimination concerning her treatment within the workplace. The second claim was initially rejected due to a typographical error in the ACAS early conciliation number. The respondents applied to strike out the second claim on grounds it was an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson and/or had no reasonable prospects of success. The individual respondents also applied to be removed from proceedings.
Decision
The tribunal granted the claimant's reconsideration application and allowed the second claim to proceed against the first respondent. The tribunal refused all strike-out applications. The judge held that Henderson v Henderson did not apply because the first claim had not been determined and there had been no finality. The principle requires conclusion of the first proceedings. The judge also held that even if applicable, a broad merits assessment would not support strike out given only six weeks between claims and different respondents involved. The discrimination claims could not be struck out as having no reasonable prospects as they were fact-sensitive.
Practical note
The Henderson v Henderson abuse of process principle requires the first proceedings to have concluded with finality (judgment or settlement) before it can be invoked to strike out a second claim, and does not apply where a second claim is brought shortly after the first while both remain live.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6006836/2024
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No