Claimant v Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (Formerly St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant's claims were not well-founded and were dismissed at the liability hearing on 4 May 2024. The tribunal concluded that in the vast majority of allegations there were no facts from which it could conclude treatment was on grounds of race, and the claimant was asserting race discrimination with no evidence or basis to support that assertion.
Claims dismissed at liability hearing. Whilst one allegation shifted the burden of proof (which respondents discharged), in most cases there were no facts from which the tribunal could conclude treatment was on grounds of disability. Some allegations related to dyspraxia and dyslexia had no reasonable prospect as the claimant had not told respondents about these disabilities until June 2021.
Claims dismissed at liability hearing. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of linking various decisions to protected acts, particularly where decisions were made years after alleged protected acts.
Facts
This was a costs hearing following dismissal of the claimant's extensive race and disability discrimination claims at a liability hearing in November 2023-February 2024. The claimant was a trainee GP who brought claims against three NHS respondents seeking over £2 million compensation. The claimant did not attend the costs hearing and had been dismissed from his employment since the liability judgment. He was receiving Jobseeker's Allowance and could not practice as a doctor due to an ongoing GMC fitness to practice investigation. The respondents sought costs on the basis the claims had no reasonable prospects and the claimant had acted unreasonably and vexatiously throughout proceedings.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant had acted unreasonably and vexatiously in bringing and conducting proceedings, including lying under oath, falsely accusing respondents of fabricating documents, making unsubstantiated discrimination allegations, and threatening the safety of witnesses. Many claims had no reasonable prospect of success which the claimant ought reasonably to have known. The tribunal exercised its discretion to award the second respondent 45% plus VAT of the respondents' legal costs (from a schedule of £155,072.12 excluding VAT), to be determined by detailed assessment, taking into account that some allegations did have reasonable prospects and no costs warning had been issued.
Practical note
A litigant in person who lies under oath, falsely accuses witnesses of fabrication, pursues multiple claims with no reasonable prospects of success, and engages in disruptive conduct including threats to witness safety will face a substantial costs award even without a costs warning, though the tribunal will moderate the award where some claims had reasonable prospects.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1303128/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2024
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Trainee GP
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No