Claimant v Sheffield City Council
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant was given one month's notice of termination on 22 January 2024, which was the contractual notice period she was entitled to. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore had no reasonable prospect of success as she was paid for her notice period.
The claim will proceed based on five identified protected disclosures only. Amendment to add further protected disclosures was refused, and certain detriment allegations (exclusion from meetings) were struck out due to disproportionate expansion of claim and unreasonable conduct of proceedings.
Removal from housing project and dismissal added as detriments. However, amendment to add extensive additional protected acts refused. Some detriment allegations struck out due to unreasonable expansion of claim requiring disproportionate factual enquiry that would make fair trial impossible.
Claim allowed to proceed subject to claimant complying with Unless Order to provide further information about who refused prayer space request, when request was made, and when it was refused. Strike out refused in favour of case management.
Claim allowed to proceed subject to claimant complying with Unless Order to provide further information about who refused prayer space request, when request was made, and when it was refused. Strike out refused in favour of case management.
Strike out refused despite claimant's failure to provide medical records and Disability Impact Statement by ordered deadlines. Tribunal concluded fair trial still possible with strict case management. Unless Orders made requiring provision of unredacted medical records (save NHS number) and Disability Impact Statement.
Claim remains live subject to case management orders and compliance with tribunal directions. No substantive determination made at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
Claimant employed by Sheffield City Council from 9 October 2023 to 22 February 2024, working only first two months before medical suspension on 18 December 2023. On that date, claimant made offensive comment to Fifth Respondent about preferring to be in coma than at work, after being told Fifth Respondent's mother-in-law was in coma. Claimant dismissed with one month's notice. Claimant brought multiple claims including whistleblowing, discrimination, and victimisation, but failed to comply with numerous case management orders and sought to amend claim from 12 pages to 45 pages with 230 paragraphs.
Decision
Tribunal struck out wrongful dismissal claim as claimant received contractual notice. Amendment application largely refused save for adding removal from housing project and dismissal as detriments. Some allegations struck out due to disproportionate expansion of claim. Disability and race/religion discrimination claims allowed to proceed subject to strict Unless Orders requiring provision of medical evidence and further particulars, with warning that non-compliance will result in strike out.
Practical note
Self-represented claimants must comply with tribunal case management orders and cannot avoid strike out indefinitely through repeated non-compliance, though tribunals will exhaust less draconian remedies like Unless Orders before striking out discrimination claims, particularly where claimant appears to have mental health difficulties.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 1801462/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Sheffield City Council
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No