Claimant v East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

Claimant had less than two years' service (employed from 10 October 2022 to 14 February 2024). Section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal claims. Tribunal found claim had no prospect of success and struck it out under Rule 38(1)(a).

Claimant alleged disclosures concerning short staffing and increased waiting times leading to unsafe environment, made to Ms Turner on 27 July 2023 and in ongoing verbal discussions. Respondent sought strike out but tribunal found claim articulated material capable of supporting a whistleblowing detriment claim and refused to strike out. Claim proceeds to final hearing.

Claimant alleged dismissal was because of or principally because of protected disclosures. He cited deliberate denial of opportunities to put his case when facing misconduct allegations. Respondent sought strike out but tribunal found claim had prospect of success and factual hearing necessary to determine interplay between misconduct complaint and alleged whistleblowing detriment. Claim proceeds to final hearing.

Last deduction dated June 2023, claim brought July 2024, well outside 3 month time limit under s.23(2) ERA 1996. Claimant raised issue with respondent in July 2023 and had access to BMA for professional help from November 2023. Tribunal found claimant was intelligent, had internet access, and was capable of bringing claim within time. It was reasonably practicable to bring claim within primary time limit so tribunal dismissed claim as out of time.

Same conduct as unlawful deduction claim but brought as breach of contract. Claim brought in time. Respondent sought strike out for insufficient detail but tribunal found two-page grounds of complaint document provided sufficient detail including factual background and sums allegedly deducted. Tribunal found claim did not have no prospect of success. Claim proceeds to final hearing.

Claimant alleged he was disparaged in staff WhatsApp group by Ms Turner who described him as 'frustrated doctor' in response to his disclosures. Respondent sought strike out and deposit order but tribunal found claim capable of supporting whistleblowing detriment and required factual hearing. Claim proceeds to final hearing.

Identified in first ET1 but no details provided. Appears to relate to same factual matrix as unlawful deductions and breach of contract claims. Status unclear from judgment.