Mrs R Hussain v HM Revenue and Customs: 1402411/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The following claims, as they were identified within the Case Summary of 3 August 2022, are dismissed as an abuse of process for the reasons given in the Case Summary of even date;1.1 Paragraph 2.1.1 insofar as it concerns the period before 23 July 2019;1.2 Paragraph 2.1.2;1.3 Paragraph 2.1.5 insofar as it concerns the period before 23 July 2019;1.4 Paragraph 2.1.8.1 insofar as it concerns the period before 23 July 2019. Case No: 1402411/2021 EMPLOYMEN T TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs R Hussain Respondent: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and others[1]Age Discrimination: that in the period October 2019 until December 2020 the respondent sought to downgrade the claimant and/or manage her out of its business by artificially creating performance improvement plans for the claimant and/or failing to make reasonable adjustments for her. The claimant alleged that Mr Bent and/or Mrs Campbell instructed, incited, or encouraged Farzana Malik to that end as an act of victimisation because she had raised concerns about them using the HRACC1 form in February 2019.[2]Age, race, and religion/belief discrimination: that in the period 17 March 2020 until 2 December 2020 Mr Bent threatened the claimant with a Performance Improvement Plan when she complained of the lack of reasonable adjustments.[3]Age, race, and religion/belief discrimination: that in the period April 2020 until November 2020 did Mr Bent tell the claimant that she should work weekends to make up the hours she had missed, when she wasn’t able to work her full contractual hours during the week.[4]Age, race, and religion/belief discrimination: that in the period May/June 2020 until May 2021 did the respondent subject the claimant to formal investigation of grievances in respect of insignificant events which were blown out of proportion rather than addressing them informally with the claimant.[5]Age, race, and religion/belief discrimination: that in the period January 2021 to 14 April 2021 did Jenny Hoult delay the claimant’s referral to occupational health (so as to enable a grievance to be submitted by Sandra Jackson which she intended would have the effect of delaying any application for Ill Health Retirement and preventing the claimant from being offered a career break by the respondent).[6]Age, race, and religion/belief discrimination: that on or about 14 April 2021 did Jenny Hoult inaccurately complete an occupational health referral and fail to copy it to the claimant because she had used the wrong consent form and had failed to discuss Ill Health Retirement as indicated in the referral.[7]Age, race, and religion/belief discrimination: that the respondent failed to address or engage with the claimant’s grievances within a reasonable time or provide a reasonable outcome, namely a grievance discussed verbally with Mr Bent in April 2020 was not concluded until July 2021.[8]Age discrimination: that in March 2020 Mrs Campbell unreasonably instructed the claimant to return to work, when the claimant had been working from home for seven days, in circumstances where reasonable adjustments were not in place and Mrs Campbell had not informed the claimant that she was entitled to special leave and did not have to work her full contractual hours.[9]Age discrimination: that in the period February 2020 to May 2020 Mrs Campbell failed to follow current procedures and guidance in relation to the making of reasonable adjustments when managing the claimant.[10]Age, race, and religion/belief discrimination: that on or before 14 April 2021 Jenny Hoult shared the claimant’s carers passport with other managers without her consent by forwarding an email to which it was attached.REASONS
[1]The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £40.00 in respect of each allegation above following a preliminary hearing held on 9 March 2023. The Order was sent to the claimant and an explanatory note was later sent to her on 31 March 2023. The claimant has failed to pay this deposit. The complaints set out above are therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[2]This does not affect the remainder of the claimant’s claims.[1]The Claimant’s entire claim (case number 1402411/2021 only) is struck out pursuant to rules 38(1)(b) and (e) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.[2]Reasons were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons have been requested by the Claimant and will be provided in due course. 1 of 2 Case Number: 1402411/2021 Employment Judge Camp Approved on 16 July 2025 Note: It is formally recorded that during the hearing on 16 July 2025, an unidentified individual entered the video hearing room with their camera off, logged off, and then came in by audio only. They were invited to identify themselves. They declined to do so, asserting that they were entitled to listen to and watch the hearing, as it was in public and as they were a member of the public, without having to identify themselves. They were referred to paragraph 11 of the 2022 Practice Guidance on Open Justice and Remote Observation of Hearings and to the fact that they had to provide “their full name and email address beforehand, unless the court dispenses with the requirement to provide their full name and email address”. They were told that although the Tribunal might well be willing to dispense with that requirement, they would have to provide some reason why the Tribunal should do that; and that simply saying they were a member of the public and that the hearing was in public would not be enough in and of itself to justify dispensing with the requirement. There was then a short break in the hearing at the Claimant’s request, during which they hung up. They did not return to the hearing. EJ Camp 16/7/2025 2 of 2