• Robert Spicer

More new employment cases



Case Ibezakio v York Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Locum Placement Group Ltd EA 2019-000145-LA

Facts I was employed by YT through LPG until September 2017. He lodged a claim to the ET in November 2017. This was dismissed in June 2018. I applied for postponement of the costs hearing. This was supported with medical evidence. The hearing proceeded and the ET made a costs order for £2000 against I, having considered his financial circumstances. I appealed to the EAT.

Decision 1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The ET had not been wrong to refuse to postpone the costs hearing on the basis that I had not slept the night before the hearing.

3. There had been insufficient medical evidence.

4. It was reasonably likely that I would be able to pay the costs at some time in the future.

5. Rule 42 of the ET Rules states that the tribunal must consider written representations which it receives seven days before a hearing. This did not prevent the tribunal from permitting a party to submit a skeleton argument at the hearing.


Striking out

Scandalous, vexatious and unreasonable conduct

Case A v B (2021) Morning Star, August 31, EAT

Facts A, an observant Hindu Indian, was employed as a doctor by B, an NHS Trust. She had a sexual relationship with C, a male colleague who was married. A suspected that C was having a relationship with SS, a junior doctor. She was prosecuted for assault on SS and was acquitted. She alleged rape by C, who was investigated but not prosecuted. A was dismissed in August 2016 following disciplinary proceedings.

A brought complaints of unfair dismissal, sex and religious discrimination. She sent a series of emails to SS, accusing her of bullying and harassment. She emailed G, the Trust’s solicitor, accusing him of sexual abuse and harassment, and claiming that C had been involved in the manslaughter of patients. The Trust applied for the complaints to be struck out.

The ET refused the application on the basis that it should be cautious in striking out a religious discrimination claim. It ordered A to cease scandalous, vexatious and unreasonable conduct. She continued to email C and G, making further allegations. The ET then struck out the complaints. A appealed to the EAT.

Decision 1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. A had sent further emails in direct breach of the ET’s order.

3. There was no evidence that A would act with appropriate restraint in future, and the ET was entitled to make the strike out order. It was impossible to have a fair trial.

2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Limitation Case TVZ v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2022] EWHC 7, Hugh Court Facts Eight men who had been sexually abused by a football coach in the 1980s claimed compensation in negligence fro