Claimant v Herefordshire & Worcestershire Health & Care NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim (capability dismissal after 13 months sickness absence) was allowed to proceed to final hearing. The tribunal found the claim was in time and the respondent would need to address it on merits.
Amendment allowed for disability discrimination claims relating to management of sickness absence (misrepresenting reason for absence in OH referral, failure to ask why absent, failure re redeployment spreadsheet, dismissal). Amendment refused for pre-absence claim regarding failure to provide adequate support from 2017 as too historic.
All race discrimination claims dismissed. Amendment to add particularised race discrimination claims refused as allegations were historic (2017-2019), evidence cogency affected, and balance of hardship did not favour claimant. ET1 failed to disclose basis of race discrimination complaint.
Amendment to add whistleblowing victimisation claims refused. No reference to whistleblowing in ET1. Claims significantly out of time. Claimant accepted particulars could have been provided when ET1 filed. No persuasive basis for extending time under 'not reasonably practicable' test.
Amendment allowed to claim for failure to pay injury allowance from 23 March 2020 to 10 November 2020 which would have topped absence pay to 85%. Tribunal found no real prejudice to respondent as contractual entitlement was straightforward matter within respondent's knowledge.
Amendment allowed for breach of contract claim regarding injury allowance payment. Claim to proceed to final hearing alongside unfair dismissal and remaining disability discrimination claims.
Facts
Mrs Pilgrim worked as a Senior HR Manager for an NHS Trust from 2000 to November 2020. She was dismissed on capability grounds after 13 months sickness absence due to anxiety and depression. She alleged discrimination, whistleblowing victimisation, and race discrimination by her line manager. Her ET1 ticked boxes for these claims but provided no particulars. She was repeatedly asked to provide details, eventually doing so in August 2021, months after filing. The claims related to alleged failures in managing her absence, failure to provide support from 2017, and alleged associative race discrimination.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was disabled from 19 February 2018 due to anxiety and depression. It allowed amendments to pursue disability discrimination claims relating to sickness absence management and a pay claim for injury allowance. It refused amendments for historic disability discrimination (pre-absence), all race discrimination claims (struck out as unparticularised and too historic), and all whistleblowing claims (significantly out of time with no basis to extend). Unfair dismissal, limited disability discrimination, and pay claims proceed to final hearing.
Practical note
A claimant who ticks boxes on an ET1 without providing any factual particulars risks having claims struck out or refused permission to amend, especially where amendments are sought long after the claim is filed and relate to historic allegations where evidence cogency is affected.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1301189/2021
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Human Resources Manager
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No