Claimant v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust

Claim struck out as abuse of process. The claimant failed to clarify whether claim 6 was an amendment to claims 1-5 or a new claim despite repeated requests from the Tribunal. All matters complained of in claim 6 existed by February 2022 and should have been included in the final hearing of claims 1-5 in August 2022. The claimant had been given clear guidance on how to include these allegations through an amendment application but failed to do so in time. It was not in the interests of justice to allow a further 5-day hearing on matters that could and should have been dealt with previously.

Claim struck out as abuse of process for the same reasons as the direct discrimination claim. The claimant had ample opportunity to include these allegations in the earlier proceedings but failed to clarify her position despite being given extensions and guidance.

Claim struck out as abuse of process. The discrimination claims related to Mr Jackson shredding documents in September 2021 and the grievance outcome in January 2022. These matters existed in full by February 2022 but the claimant failed to include them in claims 1-5 despite being asked to clarify whether she wished to amend those claims.

Claim struck out as abuse of process. The claimant alleged Mr Jackson failed to make reasonable adjustments by shredding her organised documents and returning them in an unusable electronic format. However, she failed to clarify in time that she wished these allegations to be added to claims 1-5, meaning they could not be heard at the August 2022 final hearing.

Claim struck out as abuse of process for the same reasons. The harassment allegations related to the same core facts about document shredding that the claimant knew about by September 2021 but failed to properly raise in time for the final hearing.

Claim struck out as abuse of process. Additionally, the victimisation claim suffered from issue estoppel because the protected disclosures relied upon in claim 6 had already been determined and dismissed in claims 1-5. The new detriments alleged relied on findings of fact made in earlier proceedings which had failed.

The whistleblowing detriment claims were subject to issue estoppel. The protected disclosures relied upon in claim 6 had already been determined and dismissed by the Tribunal in claims 1-5. The claimant could not rely on those disclosures to pursue further detriment claims in claim 6, including in relation to Mr Jackson's conduct.