Miss J Singh v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust: 2400893/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2400893/2025
Between
Miss J SinghClaimantPennine Care NHS Foundation TrustRespondent
Before
Employment Judge HolmesIn person for claimantDate 6 October 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]29 September 2025 (In Chambers) Before: Employment Judge Holmes (sitting alone) Representatives For the claimant: In Person For the respondent: , Miss L Amartey , Counsel[2]JUDGMENT ON PRELIMINARY HEARING It is the judgment of the Tribunal that: The claimant’s claims have no reasonable prospects of success, and are struck out.
REASONS
[1]At the hearing the claimant appeared, after some delay due to transport issues, in person, and the respondent was represented by Miss Amartey of counsel. There was a hearing bundle, and references to page numbers are to that bundle. By a claim form presented by post on 11 March 2025 , the claimant brings claims of : Unfair dismissal Age discrimination Race discrimination 1 of 27 Sex Discrimination Pregnancy or maternity discrimination Marriage or civil partnership discrimination Disability discrimination Religion or belief discrimination Whistleblowing And for: Notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and “other payments” She went on to add claims for “another type of claim” , and in that box makes reference to illness , a county court judgment, identity theft, Human Rights, a bullying and harassment policy and “removed Employment Rights case”.[2]In her handwritten claim form the claimant , in box 8.2, sets out some details of her claims, which are, unfortunately , very hard to understand , and range widely to cover very unclear allegations of illegality in relation to what appears to have been a TUPE – type transfer from Rochdale Healthcare NHS to the respondent, something to do with 5 November and an “Indian father”, the claimant’s pregnancy, pay bands, sickness absences, harassment, corruption, discrimination for being single, race relations, restraining orders, death benefit, data protection and illegal administration. There may be more.[3]The claimant also attempted to make the DWP a second respondent to her claims, but as she had no early conciliation certificate (and also had never been employed by this Department) that part of her claims was not accepted.[4]In box 12 of her ET1 for “Disability”, the claimant put “mental and physical health”, “anxiety” “depression” “psychosis” “memory loss” “confusion” and “Vitamin D deficiency”.[5]The respondent responded to the claims on 17 April 2025, taking the point in its Grounds of Resistance that the claimant had not been employed by it since 14 April 2016, and that the claims therefore were considerably out of time. The point was also taken that the claimant had not provided adequate details of the claims she was making.[6]Accordingly, by email of 26 June 2025 the respondent made application that the preliminary hearing listed for case management on 11 September 2025 be converted into a public preliminary hearing to consider the respondent’s applications that the claims should be struck out, or that the claimant be ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of them proceeding any further.[7]The claimant objected to that proposal by email of 8 July 2025, saying that the case could not be thrown out because it was “due to dwp requesting why no 2 of 27 employment since 2013”, and having no notice pay from her last employers. She went on to refer to identity theft, and other allegations which are not easy to understand.[8]By email of 17 July 2025 (which does not appear to have been copied to the respondent, and is not in the bundle) the claimant said that she would attempt “the particulars” and a “skeleton argument” against her last employers. She went on to explain her personal circumstances, being on benefits, awaiting arrears of PIP payments. She went on to say how she has a depressive illness, with brain fog, and memory loss. She suffers with fatigue and tiredness, and is taking sleeping medication at night, and paid relief tablets.[9]The Tribunal did not initially agree to the respondent’s application for a public preliminary hearing, but instead invited the respondent to seek further details of the claims from the claimant, and asked the respondent to provide evidence of the date of the termination of her employment. This was done by letter on the direction of Employment Judge Butler , dated 6 August 2025 (pages 37 to 38 of the bundle), in which the claimant was directed to send to the Tribunal details of the precise act, the precise date, and alleged perpetrator of the last discriminatory act that she relies upon in this case..[10]The claimant’s response to this was an email , at 20.11, on 10 August 2025 (page 39 of the bundle) sent to the Tribunal and the respondent, in which she said this (as received by the Tribunal, in uncorrected form ): “Has requested by Manchester employment law court, judge Butler. The case. Post box case. In delivery has well. Property case belonging too my elderly parents of retired ill health medical grounds. Mother disability badge which i have. Whom was employed by the 1st nhs Rochdale healthcare nhs trust not a foundation trust. Health trust and the case. Nursing assistant grade A until sold and changed too bands of pay and demolished wages dept on hospital grounds birch hill hospital. And capita Liverpool formed with next nhs, pennine care foundation Trust. Posted too my parents address dated with 1st sickness absence procedures policy meeting of this next nhs when claimant has been off sick with gp sick notes for years with no legal meetings or referrals too north Manchester occupational health dept legal Trust doctors. No buisness stamp, when the business has ink pads no signature when both are required legaly. Not enc medical certificates which are given too unit manager upon ringing the building has off sick. Because health corruption and because money case with capita pay n pensions for this employee. And because this would be my legal address with planning on both parents and child at the time, with my pay n pensions and this case in able too 3 of 27 afford the house address and postcode. Minutes will be sent next for the sickness absence procedures policy Rochdale heathcare nhs trust designed see contract enc for case. Justice too be done case for a family.”[11]The claimant did not, therefore, provide what she had been directed to, she did not identify the date of the last act of discrimination that she was relying upon, nor any other details that had been directed.[12]The claimant , however, followed that with another email the same day, at 23.32 again sent to the Tribunal and the respondent, in which she said this (again, as all extracts from her emails will be, reproduced exactly in the form as received by the Tribunal, only line spacing and margins being changed) : “Has requested by employment law court Manchester, by judge Butler for claimant and respondents.pennine care nhs foundation Trust. The sickness absence procedures policy is a legal document required by law, for the health and wellbeing and welfare of the nhs staff employed in all services of the Trust. And for occupational health dept doctors good practise too be used. The case is one building in the whole of this nhs not using the buisness sickness absence procedures policy because of miss Julie singh transferred from another service Acute mental health patients ward, once Rochdale healthcare nhs trust sold approx 2001 transfered over heavily pregnant with no occupational health dept teferral for legal purposes of being pregnant and shouldn't be inc in staffing numbers reports. see legal contract and quality services nhs.and quality contract of employment inc stored legaly within hr dept for good practise and good administration purposes. Their are 3 stages too the sickness absence procedures policy 1,2 3.The evidence file is stage 1the 1st stage one ever because never used before this date with me having high levels of illness or daughter unwell or parents. Dated 5th November has a direct discrimination and race discrimination and equality act 2010 and human rights discrimination on my Indian born father osman warning too them.Enc 1st contract from managers office personal staff files stored their for this case.Because money case using g 5th November certain positions hempsons covering that are not with the employee and theirs staff inc hrs that are with employee inc unit manager Lindsey baucutt Claire Marshall hrm Many more inc buisness partner and moya high mam and service manager carol harper.Head of hr at the time Mrs s. Hamilton, kay lythgoe,Angela Hartley, juliette rosser. Samantha opens Amy blakeman This booklet was made by corrupt staff not with employee those using 5th November hr justine Heaton dil jaffur, micheal mccourt Ian mckenzie, Ruth parton hr petra Bryan. And more besides these. Opening comment too meeting, for case "you must be down to no pay by now" and all these union reps. Unit manager lindsey baucutt and Claire Marshall cross reference with job centre plus form from human resources with Julie singh case.Contents 27/2/2014 important for case Inc hr15 exhausted by no rotation too days not required hr15 policy when it's rotation days/ nights see briefing papers next. Didn't sign up too redeployment because new it meant resign from postion. And not redundant putting admin because bad administration case. 4 weeks only trial on days only case postion the case also of denied promotion next pay band. 4 of 27 Harassment sick notes for no legal change too terms and condtions contract ilegal sick notes.”[13]Attached to this email are four “j-peg” documents (pages 44 to 47 of the bundle). These comprise of a document (one page, it seems,) entitled “Management’s Response to Julie Singh’s Appeal against Stage 1 Sickness Warning”, which is dated 5 November 2014, 2 pages headed “Appendix 7”, which appear to be a note of a Long Term Sickness Absence Review Meeting relating to the claimant held on 27 February 2014, at which the claimant was represented by a trade union representative, and the final page is an email exchange between the claimant and Clare Marshall of HR on 27 and 28 February 2014.[14]Again, the claimant’s email , even with the attachments , failed to address the simple question that she had been asked by the Tribunal as to what was the date of, and what was, the last act of discrimination that she was relying upon? The last date in this documentation appears to be 5 November 2014.[15]On 11 August 2025 the claimant sent a third email to the Tribunal and the respondent, at 00.52 (page 48 of the bundle) , which reads as follows: “Has requested by Manchester employment law court. 2nd meeting with minutes the contents relevant reason writing Tribunal in this meeting is because case is the sickness absence procedures policy for a Tribunal.The buisness legal document, For risk too employee,patients,public policy. Must be used case. Union rep lesley callaghan with corrupt staff and not with these staff or employee who paid union fees wage slips for representation. See stage 1 meeting with Stuart Richardson refused to represent employee 5th November. Turned up and went away with I'm not representing you on the day. Unit manager in charge of staff sick notes and meetings staff personal files managers office.and for any risk assessments,occupational health reports stress policy supervision with employee. I have had no supervision unlike the rest of staff or stress policy. Minutes are for about sickness absence reason. These employees should of also applied for Tribunals with hr15 applications. Hempsons informed trust too hide suitable vacancies emails too employee off sick. Single discrimination no partner. Shouldn't of been given stage 1 warning case. Appendix 4 this is the only cc we need too copy hempsons into whom are representing corrupt staff in this case. With hr15 applicstions on employee daughter and elderly parents. And their private owned property see 1st nhs contract enc into bundle for case. And copied in because of using 5th November case and 6/11/2014 is carol harper service manager for hr15 flexible working application appeal. at my apartment address not what's on all letters. And had my mobile number and email address.” 5 of 27[16]Attached to this email are 3 more j-pegs, at pages 49 to 51 of the bundle. The first two pages are notes of a meeting on 2 July 2014 , which the claimant attended with her union representative, to discuss her sickness absence, and the third is an email exchange, apparently covering November 2013 to 21 October 2014.[17]At 01.59 on 11 August 2025 the claimant sent the Tribunal and the respondent a fourth email (page 52 of the bundle) . This says: “Has requested by Manchester employment law court judge Butler. Bullying and harassment policy made for this employee in this building and service and family. Dignity at work policy not required in Rochdale healthcare nhs trust. Because legal buisness on legal grounds and with patients and public. Jury service on health records act off duties rotas for accurate address details times of certain letters too parents address not jury service address. Team building harassment day on employee unit manager in will pick go ape for team too attend except Julie singh whom harassment policy on with family My father before he died tell them we don't have a contract.”[18]There are three j-pegs attached to this document, and one (an extract from a document “HR4”, in which “Effects of Bullying and Harassment” has been highlighted, presumably by the claimant ) is embedded with the email on page 52. The other 2 are copies of rotas, with handwritten annotations, again, presumably by the claimant, and the third is another page from the HR4 document referred to previously, which refers to “harassment”.[19]The fifth email in this chain was sent at 02.38 on 11 August 2025 (pages 56 to 58 of the bundle), and attached to it (page 59 of the bundle) was a copy of a letter from the Tribunal in relation to the claimant’s previous Tribunal claim against this respondent , case no. 2400160/2014. It would appear that this claim was submitted by the claimant’s trade union , and the letter relates to re-sending it to a different recipient.[20]The claimant’s comments in her email were these: “Has requested by Manchester employment law court too hempsons Re sending of claim back was because respondents postponed on the day 29/4/2014 Unit manager in will sign legal signature postponed for fraud inputted via access code too capita computer only deputy below manager have access code with admin and Heathfield house Stockport. This is the only paperwork dated in ink for fraud of you must be down to no pay by now opening comment human resources sickness absence procedures policy monitor computerised pay from depts of access too pay n pensions computers staff in the service the employee works for on health records. I need too look for this dated invite meeting sickness letter 29/4/2014 in ink. No error case with inputting fraud too remove pay n pensions via computer see wage slips letters. Go.uk harassment I.e emails,letters,face to face telephone”[21]The claimant’s sixth email was sent at 09.21, and says: 6 of 27 “Has requested by Manchester employment law court Judge Butler for the respondents hempsons. Destroyed by hr A. Hartley for Julie singh mother not positive about disabled without the sickness absence procedures policy when a buisness has a policy they are refusing indirect discrimination”[22]There is one j-peg attachment to this email, (page 61 of the bundle), a screenshot of letter from the respondent dated 26 March 2014 to the claimant at what is presumed to be her parents’ address.[23]Her seventh email to the Tribunal and the respondent was sent at 10.28 on 11 August 2025 (page 62 of the bundle). It reads: “Has requested by Manchester employment law court, Judge Butler For respondents hempsons. Sick fact sheet attached too contents also via inputed too capita pay and pensions. Real legal sick fact sheet from capita pay and pensions Liverpool Then we have respo dents fake sick fact sheet for death benefit and removing legal communications too pay n pensions case. X for suspended pay is the case. My daughter from pregnancy harmed right upto date aged now 20 may 14th birthday being used on hearing index has mine is has well 3rd April for other employees full hearing index evidence. Vent vs west Yorkshire Police nspcc child cruelty too daughter Supported letter unit manager human resources sat with the cook of the unit whom was then made into band 2 nursing assistant no experience no knowledge of nursing case about university has well”.[24]There were 5 j-page attachments to this email (pages 63 to 67 of the bundle). The first is a payslip for the claimant from 1 October 2006 (although this is blurred) in another Trust, it would seem, the second seems to be a document abut sick pay, with, presumably, the claimant’s annotations on it, the third looks like a schedule of loss, again with the claimant’s annotations upon it, the fourth is a sick pay fact sheet, over two pages. The claimant has again annotated the last page.[25]The claimant’s eight email in this train was sent at 12.01 on 11 August 2025 (page 68 of the bundle). In this email the claimant says: “Has requested by Manchester employment law court judge Butler, for case management order too respondents hempsons for pennine care nhs foundation trust I will use legal authority postion of the sickness absence procedures policy signature sat with me hr adviser kay lythgoe using daughter birthday 14th may because child cruelty abuse case ink date for inputted fraud by postponed on day for county court judgement and debts. And parents address whom had no choice but too care for my new born child upon working because no other opportunities Hearing index 169 Signature case” 7 of 27[26]There was one attachment to this email (page 69 of the bundle) which does have the number 169 in the bottom right hand corner, and looks like a page from the bundle for the previous Employment Tribunal claim that the claimant brought, of which more in due course. This is a letter to the claimant from Lindsey Baucutt, the Unit Manager to the claimant inviting her to a sickness absence meeting on 14 May 2014. Again the claimant has annotated this document with her handwritten comments.[27]The claimant’s ninth email in this sequence was sent again on 11 August 2025, at 12.28 (page 70 of the bundle). In this email she says: “Has requested by Manchester employment law court,Judge Butler Case management order for respondents Representing pennine care nhs foundation trust organisation. Appeal application scrapped by letter dated 31/5/2013 and again by authority postion inside the policy unit manager and service manager and human resources no signature not required use. Page 95 first minutes of the building opened July 2001. Minutes no nhs symbol corruption health minutes inc stress, 4,693.95 was awarded 22/9/2015 and I never received it from trust taken for their fraud. I urgently need it has for my impact in health from this. For special mattress bed and washing machine clothes daughter has well. County court judgement money also mine.”[28]There were three j-peg attachments to this email (pages 71 to 73 of the bundle). The first is a Statement, dated 30 November 2015, which has the sum of £4,693.95 recorded as the “amount due”. It is not clear what this means, but the claimant’s covering emails suggests that this was a payment that she was due to receive, but never did. The second attachment is dated 13 November 2013, addressed to the claimant. It is no complete, but appears to be a document in which she was informed of the respondent’s decision to reject her appeal against the refusal of an application she had made for flexible working. Again the claimant has made handwritten annotations to this document, referring to the Trust as “Corrupt”. The third document is a set of minutes from a meeting on 12 September 2013 about the claimant’s flexible working request.[29]The claimant’s tenth email was also sent on 11 August 2025, this time at 13.56. (page 74 of the bundle) In this she says: “Has requested the case management order of claimant miss Julie mckenzie singh vs pennine care nhs foundation trust 2nd nhs est. Case using 5th November guy fawkes penny for the guy on my Indian born father. Because of nxt nhs est and changed of buisness and pay n pensions bands knowledge case. Team building on them and their legal private owned house because 1st contract personal files. Appeal sickness absence procedures policy is the case of my parents shouldn't need too appeal an organisation has members of the public with no contract of employment or my daughter shouldn't need too appeal or myself 8 of 27 the only employee in the nhs case. Positive about disabled on moya higham letter with destroyed appendix 1 and 2 case”[30]Again , there were four j-peg attachments to this email (pages 75 to 78 of the bundle). The first is a letter dated 2 October 2014 from Moya Higham, of HR, to the claimant confirming the arrangements for her appeal against a First Stage Formal Warning which was to be heard on 5 November 2014. The claimant has annotated this letter with the word “Fraudster”, referring to Dil Jauffur, the Acting Directorate Manager who was to hear it. That warning itself seems to have been issued by Lindsey Baucutt on 2 July 2014. The final document (page 78 of the bundle) is dated 22 October 2014, from Moya Higham, arranging an appeal hearing for the claimant’s appeal against her First Stage Formal Warning for 5 November 2014.[31]The claimant’s eleventh email, again on 11 August 2025, this time at 14.10 (page 79 of the bundle) , says this: “Has requester by Manchester employment law court, Judge Butler Appendix file made by human resources whom are not against claimant Julie singh or family. Appendix 1destroyed because their shouldn't be a grievance letter,or an invite too a grievance hearing using your birthday for planning on you and parents and daughter and the parents home. And life. Appendix case Inc with the legal buisness policy sickness absence procedures policy for all employees of nhs”[32]There was one attachment to this email (page 80 of the bundle) which is a list of Appendices, although to what is not clear. As reference is made to a (presumably the claimant’s) grievance dated 30 March 2014, these documents are presumably part of the claimant’s appeal against the outcome of a grievance about the refusal of her flexible working application.[33]The claimant’s twelfth email, still sent on 11 August 2025, at 14.47 says little more than to produce a copy of a County Court judgment (page 81 of the bundle) . That judgment (as far as can be seen, it is not totally clear) is dated 20 April 2017, in the sum of £633.5, which is the balance of a larger sum which the claimant was alleged to have owed the respondent (the claimant in that action) of £3379.84 plus interest , of which she had paid some £3034.34. The claimant has written the words “Scam County Court Judgement” on this document. The other attachment (page 82 of the bundle) is a letter dated 24 June 2017 from enforcement agents acting for the respondent to enforce that judgment.[34]The claimant continued to send emails on 11 August 2025, her thirteenth being sent at 15.33 (page 83 of the bundle). Again this largely simply produces, embedded in the email, a copy of a letter ,from Capita , acting for the Trust, dated 3 November 2014. This pre-dates, of course, the County Court judgment, but appears to be the origin of the County Court claim against the claimant. From this it appears that the Trust considered that the claimant was overpaid by £7361.29 from February 2014.The details are unclear, but it seems that the Trust was to seek to recover this sum over a period of 2 years at the rate of £335.06.72 per month. 9 of 27[35]In the text of the email the claimant says this: “Foul play capita not overpayment not in error shut down on system again on father and his house using india Feb 2014 Money owed too miss Julie singh not respondents is the case. I'm not ssp case neither hence job plus form from hr I am fact sick sheet suspension case.”[36]To this email the claimant attached another document (page 84 of the bundle) a Statement dated 1 October 2006, but quite what this shows, or is meant to show, is unclear.[37]The emails continued, the next, her fourteenth being at 15.40 on 11 August 2025 (page 85 of the bundle) , the text of which reads: “Case appendix file Outcome letters Destroyed appendix 10/11 case Destroyed appendix 1 and 2 their shouldn't be any applications sickness absence procedures policy over hr15 flexible working policy and grievance policy and their shouldn't be a signature page hence identical paperwork one Destroyed no signature page”[38]The claimant attached three j-pegs to this email (pages 86,87, and 88 of the bundle). The first is a letter dated 4 June 2014, which does not appear to be complete, but relates to a grievance that the claimant had submitted on 30 March 2014 about her flexible working request, the last page of which seems to be at page 87.The last page (page 88 of the bundle) is a copy of a letter dated 10 June 2014, which , whilst distorted, seems to be part of a grievance outcome letter sent to the claimant.[39]The claimant’s next email, her fifteenth, again on 11 August 2025, now at 23.04 again attached four j-pegs, which the claimant referred to in the text of this email as follows: “Dear sirs this bundle wasn't sent too law firm I used it was sent by royal mail and attempted too deliver at my parents house the case dated letter 3rd November capita Liverpool pay n pensions is for the 5th November case on my father using penny for the guy, guy fawkes. This is a fake bundle capita fake paperwork dul jaffur justine Heaton criminals in this case.” There then appears embedded in the email a screenshot of an email exchange over 4 and 5 December 2014 between the claimant, Justine Heaton of HR and Lindsey Baucutt about the claimant’s payslips which she was requesting for September, October and November 2014. After this, the claimant continues in her email thus: “Requested by Judge Butler Manchester employment law court for respondents hempsons representing pennine care nhs foundation Trust Fake perjury wage slips made by Trust withholding my real wage slips 10 of 27 Copy pay advice means perjury copies.”[40]The attachments to this email appear to be (at pages 93 and 90 to put them in the correct order) a Hearing Bundle Index for the claimant’s previous Employment Tribunal claim under case no. 2402579/2015 , and, at pages 91 and 92 a computer pay advice report of 27 December 2014 , and payslip dated 1 October 2006 (a further copy, it seems), both of which have been annotated by the claimant as being “fake”.[41]The claimant’s last email on 11 August 2025, her sixteenth, at 23.39 (page 94 of the bundle) says this: “Has requested by Judge Butler for Manchester employment law court for case management order. Access code given too deputy below unit manager whom works Monday too Friday 9 until 5 pm blocked access when sickness absence procedures policy unit manager should have access code for staff sickness communications on health records act rotas Pam oh solutions shouldn't of been used by dil jaffur justine Heaton micheal mccourt Henry Ticehurst. They are not the occupational health dept service provider for the legal sickness absence procedures policy north Manchester reports are the only legal paperwork inc on hearing index for case with the unit manager hr sickness absence procedures policy. The capita letter is criminal inputted too pay and pensions on Julie singh inc shut down on the 10th February capita letter for too cause debts too do unlawful deductions removals inc people.”[42]There are two j-peg attachments to this email. The first (page 95 of the bundle) is part of what looks like an Occupational Health report on the claimant , dated 30 October 2014.The claimant is referring to this in the text of her email, and appears to have had issues with this organisation being involved as it was not the service provider for the sickness absence procedure. The other document appears to relate to enquiries that the claimant was making in June 2015 about who should have had legal access to , or to input, information into the respondent’s systems. Again, from her annotations, the claimant appears to be contending that the respondent was acting illegally in some way.[43]By now the claimant was emailing into 12 August 2025, as her seventeenth email was sent at 00.06 that day (pages 97 and 98 of the bundle). The text of this message reads: “Has requested by Judge Butler for case management order and for respondents hempsons for pennine care nhs foundation trusts Hr15 flexible working policy application needs removing from last tribunal advertising ilegaly detained employee, family paperwork. DBS certificate sent dated letter for case on employee and family has staff should be on the disclosure barring service for this case. Buisness stamp available for this case. 6/11/2013 appeal carol harper service manager arranged for 6th November too avoid case of sensitive information 5th November being used” 11 of 27[44]Again, there are attachments to this email, three in number. The first and last pages (pages 99 and 13 of the bundle) are part of a DBS application form, on which the name of the respondent appears, and a letter from the respondent to the claimant, but apparently returned to the respondent on 9 February 2015, in which she was informed that her DBS certificate had expired. The second (page 101 of the bundle) is a copy of a letter of 24 October 2013 from Carol Harper of the respondent seeking to arrange an appeal hearing for the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of her request for part – time working. Again the claimant has annotated this document. The third document (page102 of the bundle) is what appears to be a screenshot of an employment law website, with a Cases Update, where reference is made to the claimant’s appeal to the EAT in 2016 against part of an Employment Tribunal judgment in a previous case that she brought against the respondent, probably case no. 2402579/2015. Whilst a full copy does not appear in the bundle, the Employment Judge has accessed a copy of the judgment of Kerr J. in the EAT, which heard the claimant’s appeal on 6 December 2016. The claimant appeared in person at that hearing.[45]On 12 August 2025 at 08.05 Mrs L Chrimes of the Tribunal sent an email to the claimant (page 104 of the bundle) acknowledging her email of 00.06 that morning, and informing her that the Tribunal did not need any evidence or supporting documents for the preliminary hearing, and what documents would actually be required. She was also informed that her pervious emails had not been placed on the Tribunal file.[46]The claimant , however, continued, and the next email in this chain (the eighteenth) appears to be on 12 August 2025 at 08.46 (page 108 of the bundle). The body of this email reads: “Has requested for case management order,by Judge Butler for respondents hempsons for case claimant with pennine care nhs foundation Trust. Stored in managers office extra page added for Authors of written work. Removed pages. Continuity front page is for "buisness has usual" on me ilegal buisness plan, back page unit manager lead over deputy inc pay and pensions and bands of pay.”[47]There were three attachments to this email at pages 109 to 111 of the bundle. They are extracts from a Business Continuity Plan, dated January 2014 for Stansfield Place. Again the claimant has annotated the second page of this attachment.[48]The claimant continued her emails, the next one being sent at 09.12 on 12 August 2025 (page 112 of the bundle). This one reads: “Dear sirs/ mam Has requested by Judge Butler by means of legal letter from Manchester employment law court For case management order too respondents. 2nd nhs contract terms and condtions of employment. Health records act made for 2nd nhs contract only planned case and contract even for rotas(off duties) health records act. Sent by unit manager lead over staff but no access code too pay and pensions capita Liverpool two blank records because ilegal by law communications on them for staff and esp Julie singh with sick fact sheet 12 of 27 should be x for suspended on pay. These then go too subject and access team records dept for each service of this organisation, to apply for records made a small fee too be paid 10.00 pounds which I applied for. And used personal credit card. Tesco case for capita bundle. I also put secrets act case.”[49]Again, there were attachments (pages 113 to 114 of the bundle). The first is an extract of some procedure applicable to payments during sickness absence, and reference to occupational health (which the claimant has highlighted), the second is a copy of two pages of rotas (again apparently taken from the bundle for the previous Tribunal proceedings, as they bear page numbers). They cover the periods w/c 5 August 2013 and w/c 12 August 2013. Again the claimant has highlighted, and made annotations on these documents, in particular that she should have been suspended on full pay, and that there had been “criminal” inputs onto the system.[50]At 11.09 on 12 August 2025 the claimant sent her twentieth email (page 115 of the bundle) in this sequence, the text of which is as follows: “Requested by Judge Butler,for case management order and for respondents hempsons pennine care nhs foundation Trusts Supported letter for case of comparison nursing assistant was cooking in the unit originally for this building, kitchens closed down buisness plan, and x2 made into band 2 bottom pay nursing assistants. Jade Hughes letter. With unit manager over staff buisness plan and hr. Dates important 14th may arranged by hr unit manager for supported letter with my child abused hers not by trust. I'm 25 years service in from 1st nhs of grade A pay not bands next nhs of pay attached too knowledge of nursing. Annual leave card in admin office. This employee not put off sick via health records act not doing nights. And supported letter for why should this employee having too be made too rely on both parents old and retired with health problems both. And their own life too lead inc going too India their apartment. And doesn't require Trubunal for none est shifts what payroll wouldn't recognise has shifts start times and finish time of this unit with this employee or hours employed for. University never appeared for this employee she was at risk by meeting with hours shifts and left untouched until approx 2016 now admin post postion. See LinkedIn for jobs. Julie singh experienced nursing assistant of years and from a legal nhs buisness Rochdale healthcare Trust start date October 1990. No signature too letter ,no nhs Symbol”[51]Again, the claimant attached three documents to this email (pages 116 to 118 of the bundle). The first (page 116 of the bundle) appears to be a request for flexible working, made in May (2014 seems likely) not by the claimant , but by someone else, possibly Jade Hughes, to whom the claimant refers in her email, and who she appears to be using as a comparator. The claimant has annotated this document, and makes references to dates of 5 and 12 August 2013. The next two pages (pages 117 and 118 of the bundle) are copies of the claimant’s annual and special leave records. The 13 of 27 former has been completed, and relates to the year 2013/2014. The second, which relate to the year 2015/2016 is blank.[52]The claimant’s next email is timed at 11.47 on 12 August 2025 (page 119 of the bundle). In it she says this: “Has requested by Judge Butler for Manchester employment law court, case management order. Original hearing index sent for both bundles. Fake sick fact sheet 317 hearing index dated the 3rd November hearing index law firm hempsons on board with using 5th November case on elderly father Mr H singh of 2 lapwing close bamford Rochdale OL115PY their legal owned house and grounds and paid rates and council tax this council tax theft took place from change of nhs too pennine care foundation Trust off my elderly parents whom both worked for their belongings inc property. Fact sheet the respondents removed death benefit from the back page. Employee 2 no stress policy required or any mental health issues made too her by this. Hearing index Susan Hamilton with Julie singh case head of hr dept at the time, Ruth parton against Julie singh”[53]The claimant attached 5 j-pegs to this email (pages 120 to 124 of the bundle). The last three are (albeit out of order) the Index for the hearing bundle in case no. 2400160/2014. This starts with an ET1 , which is dated 9 December 2023. The claimant has written against this entry “Bullying and Harassment A Number of Discriminations”. Whilst some of the documents in this Index go back to 2006, the majority of them relate to 2012, 2013 and 2014. The first page is an undated extract from a Sick Leave Factsheet, as is the fourth page, page 124.Again the claimant has made annotations to these documents.[54]At 12.46 on 12 August 2025 the claimant sent her next email , her twenty second, where she said: “Dear sirs a guide too change of pensions from change of nhs Rochdale healthcare nhs trust sold approx 2001 see legal made contract and with pay and pensions and even by way of of any pay errors made. I never had any pay errors. The trust wage dept was demolished for that trust and general wards when sold. For purpose of case and department of work and pensions. Retirement age. Covering date of birth also.” Beneath this text is a screenshot of a page which appears to be an extract of a document that is then attached as a j-peg (page 128 of the bundle) , a booklet entitled “Your NHS Pension Choice Guide”. The page which is copied is entitled “Which benefits are being compared?”[55]At 14.34 on 12 August 2025 the claimant sent her twenty third email (page 129 of the bundle) , saying this: “Has requested by L chrimes clerk. Unsure if it's the old ET form 1 and these and no agenda form for previous Tribunal. 14 of 27 Or if it's your requiring new ET form 1 grounds of resistance and agenda letter sent recently. Please can you advise Has case management is after a pre lim hearing.”[56]The claimant attached to this email 3 pages of j-pegs (pages 130 to 132 of the bundle) , the first two pages of which are a copy of Case Management Orders made in case no. at a preliminary hearing held on 25 July 2014, and the last page is the first page of the respondent’s Grounds of Resistance to those claims, but is incomplete.[57]The Tribunal responded to the claimant by email at 14.43 that day, explaining that it was the ET1 for her new claim that was required, and an Agenda , a blank copy of which was provided to the claimant (pages 133 to 141 of the bundle).[58]By email at 16.17 on 13 August 2025 (page143 of the bundle) the respondent provided to the Tribunal a copy of the letter dismissing the claimant from its employment on 14 April 2016 (pages 144 to 147 of the bundle). That letter refers to a conduct and disciplinary hearing held on 6 April 2014, which the claimant did not attend. The hearing had been convened to consider three allegations against the claimant , which were investigated as gross misconduct.[59]The Panel upheld one of the three allegations, which was found to be gross misconduct. The claimant was dismissed with effect from 6 April 2014 , the date of the hearing. The claimant was advised of her right of appeal against that decision. The claimant did not appeal that decision.[60]In this email the respondent also referred to the claimant’s failure to provide the precise date of the last act that she was relying upon, as directed by Employment Judge Butler, and to the 20+ emails that she had sent to the Tribunal in the preceding three days. It was submitted that there had been no employment relationship between the claimant and the respondent since 2016, and the application to convert the preliminary hearing into a public preliminary hearing was renewed.[61]Following receipt of that email , the Tribunal, by letter of 28 August 2025 , did convert the hearing into a public preliminary hearing, for 3 hours, to consider the respondent’s strike out application, or, alternatively, any application for deposit orders. The letter includes an extract from the guidance published on Strike Out or Deposit applications.[62]The claimant next wrote to the Tribunal on 28 August 2025 at 22.56 (page151 of the bundle). In this email she says: “Has requested agenda for case number 2400893/2025 With no Time limits due too death benefit with the harassment sick notes attached too money. Death benefit case. Ilegal living through case Inc house.”[63]The claimant attached to this email the first two pages (pages 153, 154 of the bundle) of her completed Agenda. She subsequently, as attachments to further emails 15 of 27 on 28 August 2025 , sent to the Tribunal the remaining pages (pages 156, 157, 158, 160, 161,and 162 of the bundle) of her completed Agenda.[64]In her email of 29 August 2025 (page 163 of the bundle, with no attachments ) the claimant said: “Agenda for 11/9/2025 pre lim public hearing. No time limits case. Claimant limited capability benefit only income.”[65]In her next email, on 29 August 2025 at 07.08 (page 163 of the bundle) the claimant said: Case number 2400893/2025 I forgot for agenda, public hearing 11/9/2025,with brain fog pressure. County court judgement is fraud by respondents to be dealt with please. Full evidence for Tribunal.[66]In ensuing emails on September 2025 the claimant simply sent to the Tribunal a copy (spread as attachments to several emails) of her ET1 form. The claimant’s Agenda document.[67]As it may cast light upon the claimant’s claims, despite it being hand written and spread across several emails, the Employment Judge considers it important that the Tribunal records what the claimant has written in this document, as revealing what claims she has made, or is seeking to make, in these proceedings. This is not an easy task, but to be totally fair to her, the following appears to be her case.[68]To summarise what the claimant has written (where possible) : In Box 1.3 the claimant has made reference to her mental health issues, anxiety, claustrophobia, suicidal thoughts under pressure, mobility and walking and her memory; In Box2.1 she has confirmed the identity of the current, and only, respondent; In Box2.2 she has suggested that “certain Human Resources Head” at Trust HQ, i.e Justine Heaton, be joined as a party; In (or just above, but probably intended to be included in this box) Box 3.1, which seeks to identify the claims being made, the claimant has put: No time limit on Death No Notice Pay OP Pay or A/L Pay Benefit Case 5th November Case 16 of 27 Pay/Pensions Public Order Bullying and Harassment Human Rights Act Direct/Indirect Discrimination Race Ill Health Sex Discrimination Disabled Discrimination Maternity Discrimination Pregnancy Discrimination Industrial Action Data Protection Act At the side of these entries the claimant has written “DWP request all Acts Tribunal”.[69]The claimant went on to make some entries in Boxes 3.5 and 3.7, which do not explain any further the claims she is making. In Box 4.1, remedy for unfair dismissal, the claimant said she did not seek reinstatement. The claimant filled in some details in Box 6.1 , which relates to deposit orders, but that box is really for persons making such an application, which she is mot. She did, however, go on to refer to her limited ability to work, and receipt only of benefits.[70]In Box 7, which relates to privacy, the claimant makes (it seems, it is hard to understand) further reference to matters she has previously raised in her emails about addresses, DBS certificates, and privacy in relation to something to do with 5 November.[71]In Box 8.1, which relates to further preliminary hearings, the claimant has written “Case no time limits on Death Benefit case” and “Fact Sheet Case”.[72]The claimant has not really completed any other boxes with any information that casts light on what her claims may be, but at the end of the Agenda, under “Any Other Matters” the claimant has added a number of matters. They include: Short Term/Long Term sickness Made homeless Council Tax theft of both parents house case 17 of 27 Injury to feelings Pension Loss Illegal communications and sick notes Stalking India for race Illegal building It is, however, hard to understand what exactly the claimant meant by all that she had written in this part of the Agenda.[73]The claimant followed this with another email on 29 August 2025 at 07.08 (page 163 of the bundle) in which she said: “I forgot for agenda, public hearing 11/9/2025,with brain fog pressure. County court judgement is fraud by respondents to be dealt with please. Full evidence for Tribunal.”[74]The Employment Judge apologises for the above extensive rehearsal of virtually all of the communications received from the claimant by the Tribunal and the respondent. This has been necessary because, firstly, as will hopefully be appreciated, there is simply no easy way to attempt so summarise the contents of the claimant’s communications , and secondly, it is important that the totality of the information that the claimant has provided to the Tribunal , in her attempts to provide adequate details of her claims, is there to be seen and examined. The respondent’s application[75]For the respondent Ms Amartey submitted that the claims were hopelessly out of time, and there was no reasonable prospect that a Tribunal would extend the time for their presentation.[76]She set out the two stage test that the Tribunal has to apply. The first was the threshold test of whether the claimant has reasonable prospects of success in any of the claims that she has made, and the second was whether the Tribunal should then strike the claims out. She would take the Tribunal through the headlines of the claims that were made, as the Tribunal would have to understand the substance of what she was claiming.[77]For this purpose the Tribunal should consider the case on the documents presented at its highest, even if there may be disputed facts. The Tribunal could, however, consider the claimant’s case critically, and whether any part of it is implausible. In relation to deposit orders, the Tribunal was not confined to legal issues, but could assess the likelihood of factual allegations succeeding as well. The Tribunal could look at the total sum to be paid, taking into account the claimant’s means, so as not to prevent the claimant pursuing her claims. 18 of 27[78]The claimant has put August 2013 in her ET1 as the date that her employment had ended , but had crossed that out and written that it had not legally ended (page 11 of the bundle) . Attempts to get her to provide an end date for her claims had not met with success. The respondent has produced (page 144 of the bundle) a dismissal letter ending the claimant’s employment on 14 April 2016. The claimant had issued Tribunal proceedings in 2014.[79]The Employment Judge asked whether those claims had included any claim of unfair dismissal, which seemed unlikely as the claimant had not, at that time, been dismissed. The claimant responded that her claims had included unfair dismissal, a claim which she says she submitted to Employment Judge Pitt during a hearing.[80]As the Tribunal cannot access any record of those proceedings as they were so long ago, it is hard to tell what happened, but it may be that , having been dismissed before those (or another set, for the claimant appears to have made two previous claims) in the course of a hearing taking place after her dismissal the claimant attempted to amend to include a claim of unfair dismissal.[81]Ms Amartey continued , saying that if the claimant was dismissed in 2016, nothing in her current ET1 , at page 8, post – dates that dismissal.[82]The claimant has apparently brought the claims to explain to the DWP her lack of employment for a number of years. Her claims all appear to relate to the termination of her employment, or to events before it.[83]There is, of course, a 3 month time limit for Tribunal claims, with extensions available either on the “not reasonably practicable” or “just and equitable” bases, depending upon the type of claim. The claimant’s early conciliation certificate is dated 20 May 2025, almost 9 years after her dismissal. None of her claims can be in time, and any application for an extension of time would be hopeless.[84]The fact that one cannot find any facts alleged in the claim form, prejudices the respondent, and there, in any event no discernible claims made in that document. It may make a little more sense, now that the claimant has supplied some further information to the Tribunal and the respondent, but the claimant may be seeking to use the Employment Tribunal improperly to explain things that have happened to her post – termination. If that is so, that is not the correct process.[85]All the matters that the claimant seems to be wanting to raise, for the benefit of the public, her parents, or the DWP are not matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.[86]In Box 8 of the ET1 the claimant has ticked the box for unfair dismissal. This is a claim which is very out of time. The claimant has also ticked many other boxes, for various forms of discrimination, and whistleblowing, which is indicative of her brining claims without them being properly put.[87]Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 provides how the burden of roof applies in discrimination cases, and the claimant’s ET1 does not begin to assert any basis for any such claims, not even making bare assertions that any treatment was because of any protected characteristic. The claimant would not begin to satisfy the requirements 19 of 27 of a prima facie case set out in Madarrasy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 246 . The burden of proof would not shift on the mere possibility of a claim, and the Supreme Court in Efobi v Royal mail Group [2021]IRLR 811.[88]She also referred the Tribunal to Bahl v The Law Society [2004] IRLR 799 where the EAT stressed the need for more than just possession of a protected characteristic , and treatment that is complained of , such as dismissal.[89]Finally, there was an argument of estoppel, based on the principles of Henderson v Henderson to the extent that the claimant was now seeking to litigate matters that relate to a period before her dismissal.[90]By way of illustration, she made reference to page 59 of the bundle, where the Tribunal’s letter re-sending her claims in April 2014 can be found, and page 65 , which is the claimant’s schedule of loss from those claims, which includes a claim for future loss of earnings. All the claimant’s documents rely upon matters raised in the previous claim forms. If the claims do overlap , then there is an abuse of process.[91]The Tribunal should take a broad, merits – based, approach . There has been no explanation for the claimant as to why she has waited 9 years to bring these claims. They have no reasonable prospects of success, and should be struck out. The claimant’s submissions[92]The Employment Judge sought to get the claimant to explain just what claims she was seeking to bring, and what claims she has previously brought in her previous Tribunal claims.[93]In particular, he asked what the claimant mean by her frequent references the 5 November incident or claim. At one point she has suggested that the respondent had somehow done something to her father (,making references to Guy Fawkes) on that date. From what she explained, however, her complaint was that therefore was a meeting arranged for this date (probably in 2014, but certainly before 2016), which the claimant regards as somehow detrimental to her and/or her father.[94]The claimant made references to an HR15 Policy, but the Employment Judge was not referred to what this was, and how the claimant links this to any claims she makes, or has previously made. Later references suggest that this was the respondent’s flexible working policy.[95]The origins of the claimant’s complains went back to her managers not agreeing to her requests to change her hours. Her parents were not employed by the respondent, but were affected by its decisions about her working hours. Her complaint was that she should have been employed in a Band where she would not have needed to use her parents for her childcare (presumably because she would have earned enough to fund external childcare provision). 96. the Employment Judge referred the claimant to the Tribunal’s letter of6 August 2025 (page 37 of the bundle), and the request for the claimant to provide a date for the last of the acts of discrimination she was relying upon in these claims, and referred her 20 of 27 to her email of 12 August 2025 at 11.09 (page 115 of the bundle) in which she made reference to a date of 14 May, but did not specify the year. This appeared, however, to be 2014, or 2015, at the latest.[97]More dates are referred to in the claimant’s email of 00.06 of 12 August 2025 (page 97 of the bundle), but these are in November 2013.[98]The claimant confirmed that she has found, and provided , the reference to her appeal to the EAT at page 102 of the bundle, and that this was in relation to her claim relating to denial of her flexible working request.[99]The claimant made reference to the letter at pages 86 and 87 of the bundle, dated 4 June 2014, which related to her grievance about her flexible working request.[100]The Employment Judge could see that the claimant was struggling to address the issues that he was considering, and so advised that she take a break. He stressed to her the need, when the hearing resumed, for her to identify when the most recent thing or event that she was claiming about had occurred. She explained that she had suffered a breakdown, and this had made things very hard for her.[101]After the break the Employment Judge asked the claimant if there was anything that had happened after her dismissal in April 2016 that she was now seeking to bring any claims about. He explained that if there was not, the all her claims would be very much out of time.[102]He asked the claimant what were the reasons why nothing had happened between 2016 and 2025. The claimant said that this was because Kerr J. had dismissed her appeal , referring to page 102 of the bundle.[103]The Employment Judge asked if there were any flexible working claims in these claims, and the claimant replied that there were in the respondent’s emails which referred to HR15.[104]The Employment Judge asked the claimant to expand upon the reasons why she had not done anything to brings these claims since 2016, and she replied that she had been made very ill, she had been homeless three times, and sleeping on the streets.[105]She had only brought these proceedings because the DWP had told her to register a Tribunal claim when she had applied for PIP, otherwise she may have left matters, but was not really sure what to do.[106]There were many things that were left unresolved, which affected not only her but the public. She had been singled out, the only one employee in the whole of NHS to be treated the way that she was.[107]The claimant went on to make various references to matters that she had raised in her 20 plus emails to the Tribunal , such as the use of wrong addresses, the lack of a business address on documents, an entry of a JobCentre Plus form, and so on, and so forth, the relevance of which the Employment Judge could not immediately see. 21 of 27[108]Finally, the claimant referred to an “Appendix” file, but this was not before the Tribunal. She said that she should have been retired from the NHS, but the Trust would not pay her to retire, which was part of her complaint, which, she agreed, would go back to 2014. Discussion and ruling[109]The Employment Judge appreciates that he has extensively cited and rehearsed the claimant’s email communications to the Tribunal and their attachments. This , he considers, has been necessary to understand just what claims the claimant is making , or seeking to make, in the claim that she now has presented to the Tribunal by her claim form submitted on 11 March 2025. The respondent seeks to have these claims struck out , on the grounds that they have no reasonable prospects of success, so it is vital that the claims the claimant is actually making are actually identified at the very outset of any assessment of their prospects of success.[110]The claimant has not, however, unfortunately, made this an easy task. Despite the Tribunal’s direction of 6 August 2025 to her to identify the last act that she relies upon, when it occurred, and who perpetrated it, a simple question, the claimant has failed to address this, and did not do so in the course of the hearing.[111]That is not to be critical of her, as she is unrepresented, and, the Tribunal will accept at face value without formal medical evidence, probably has the mental health and other conditions she has set out in box 12 of the ET1, and her email of 17 July 2025, amounting to a disability , for which the Tribunal, of course, has to make reasonable adjustments. It has done so, by taking the whole of the information that she has provided to the Tribunal , whether in a formal and appropriate format or not, into account in trying to discern what claims she is actually now, in 2025 , seeking to make, and whether , particularly given the length of time that has elapsed since her employment ended, there is any reasonable prospect of her overcoming the time limit issues that arise in respect of all the claims that she conceivably makes.[112]The claimant brings different claims, to which different provisions as to time limits apply. In the case of her claim of unfair dismissal the relevant time limit is 3 months from the effective date of termination, pursuant to s.111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which provides :(1) A complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal against an employer by any person that he was unfairly dismissed by the employer.(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, an employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal— (a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination, or (b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months. 22 of 27 (2A) Section 207B (extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) applies for the purposes of subsection (2)(a).[113]There is, it will be seen, an exception , which entitles a Tribunal to extend the time for presentation of the claim if it was not “reasonably practicable” for the claimant to have presented them in time, and the claim was then presented within a reasonable time. That test applies (under different, but similarly worded , provisions) to the claims for whistleblowing, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of wages.[114]In relation to any claims of discrimination, the relevant statutory provisions are in Equality Act 2010 , at s.123 which provides :(1) Subject to section 140B proceedings on a complaint within section 120 may not be brought after the end of— (a) the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or (b) such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable.(2) [Equal pay claims -N/a](3) For the purposes of this section— (a) conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period; (b) failure to do something is to be treated as occurring when the person in question decided on it.(4) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a person (P) is to be taken to decide on failure to do something— (a) when P does an act inconsistent with doing it, or (b) if P does no inconsistent act, on the expiry of the period in which P might reasonably have been expected to do it.[115]The Tribunal’s first task is to determine whether any of the claims in issue were presented in time. Whilst the claims are not very clear, all of them must have arisen by the time the claimant’s employment ended, which was 14 April 2016. Her last claim would be her allegedly unfair dismissal, and that was presented over 8 years, nearly 9 years, out of time.[116]It follows that all of the claimant’s claims were presented at least 8 years out of time. The question for this Tribunal is whether she has any reasonable prospects of persuading a Tribunal to extend the time for their presentation, either (in the case of the dismissal and other ERA claims) on the basis that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented those claims in time, and that she then presented them within a reasonable time, or, in the case of the discrimination claims, that it would be just and equitable to extend the time for their presentation. 23 of 27[117]In approaching its task, the Tribunal bears in mind that it is not deciding whether or not to extend time, it is deciding whether the claimant has any reasonable prospects of persuading a Tribunal to do so applying either of the relevant statutory tests. The distinction between these two exercises was highlighted in the recent case of Mesuria v Eurofins Forensic Services Ltd [2025] EAT 103. In order to assess the claimant’s prospects of success , however, the Tribunal will have to set out the relevant tests that she would have to satisfy, and then assess her prospects of doing so.[118]The Tribunal has to apply two different tests to the claims that the c may now be seeking to make. The first problem, however, is identifying just what claims she is making. The claims to which the “reasonably practicable” test applies.[119]As she has ticked the box for unfair dismissal, the Tribunal can, and does, find that she is making such a claim. Further, as she has also ticked the boxes for notice pay, holiday pay, and arrears of pay, the Tribunal will also accept that she is making such claims as well. That said , no sensible details of any of these claims are set out in her claim form.[120]Be that as it may, these claims are therefore subject to the requirement that they be presented within 3 months of (at the latest) the end of the claimant’s employment. That was 6 April 2016 (or rather that was the date of the letter : as the claimant was not at the meeting, the dismissal can only have taken effect when the letter was received, so the effective date of termination was probably not until 16 April 2016, the respondent may care to note for future reference). They were not, they were not brought until 11 March 2025 , on any view, 8 years and 11 months after the dismissal, so 8 years and 7 months, at least, out of time.[121]As noted, the Tribunal can extend time for the presentation of the claims is it was not reasonably practicable to have presented the claims within time. The claimant has not, with respect, really explained why it was not reasonably practicable to have presented these claims within that initial three month time limit. It appears that she had the benefit of union representation whilst employed by the respondent. She has not explained what , if any , steps she took to obtain advice upon her dismissal, or any other claims, before, or shortly after her employment ended.[122]Equally, whilst noting that the claimant has had other difficulties , again she has provided no details of when she was homeless, when she was ill, or when she suffered any other issues which prevented her bringing these claims either within that initial period, or much sooner than she has done. The caselaw makes it clear that the want of reasonable practicability must have applied to the whole of the period of the delay in presenting the claims.[123]The claimant has not only to show that it was not reasonably practicable to have presented the claims within the initial period, but then that the claims were presented within a reasonable time. 24 of 27[124]The Tribunal cannot regard the period of 8 years or more as a reasonable time. Whatever the reasons for the claimant’s delay, that is such a long period that it cannot be regarded as reasonable. Whilst there may be exceptional circumstances in which a Tribunal could find such a long period as nonetheless being reasonable, there are none here. The prejudicial effect of the delay upon the respondent, the lack of clarity of the claims even now, and the lack of any prior intimation that any such claims would ever be made all combine to render the period of delay as unreasonable, and all these claims must be struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The other claims to which the just and equitable test of extension applies.[125]This leaves the final issue of whether it would nonetheless be just and equitable to extend the time for presentation of the other claims. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion , the Tribunal takes into account the guidance upon how it should approach this task set out in British Coal Corporation v.Keeble [1997] IRLR 336 . In the event that these two claims as presented, are out of time, the Tribunal has to consider whether to extend time under s.123 above, on the basis that it would be just and equitable to do so. This discretion, of course, is the same as conferred by several other discrimination statutes, and caselaw has evolved as to how a Tribunal should approach the exercise of its discretion. One of the leading cases is Robertson v. Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link 2003 [IRLR] 434, a judgment of the Court of Appeal. Of particular note is the judgment of Auld L J, who made it clear that there was no presumption of extension, but rather the converse was the case, extension was the exception, not the rule, and an out of time claimant had to convince a Tribunal why an extension should be granted. In terms of the principles upon which a Tribunal should approach the exercise of the discretion, the EAT in Chohan v. Derby Law Centre [2004] IRLR 685 endorsed the approach taken in British Coal Corporation v. Keeble to the effect that Tribunals should consider the factors listed in s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980 , which applies to the exercise of discretion to extend time in personal injury claims before the civil courts. Those factors are: The length of and reasons for the delay; The extent to which the cogency of the evidence is likely to be affected by the delay; The extent to which the party sued had co-operated with any requests for information; The promptness with which the claimant acted once he knew of the facts giving rise to the cause of action;and The steps taken by the claimant to obtain appropriate advice once she knew of the possibility of taking action.[126]Those factors, whilst useful, must not, however, be regarded as a checklist, or exhaustive. In London Borough of Southwark v. Afolabi [2003] ICR 800 the Court of Appeal held that the s.33 factors were of utility, but that as long as no significant factor was left out of consideration, a failure to follow the express provisions of s.33 would not be an error of law. In that case, delay of 9 years was, exceptionally, not fatal to the application to extend time. 25 of 27[127]In Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation [2021] ICR D5, the Court of Appeal repeated a caution against a practice which had grown up of tribunals relying on the checklist of factors found in s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (a checklist which applies to extensions of time for late personal injury claims in the civil courts), when deciding whether it would be just and equitable to extend time. The Court of Appeal described that 'The best approach for a tribunal in considering the exercise of the discretion under s 123 (1) (b) is to assess all the factors in the particular case which it considers relevant to whether it is just and equitable to extend time, including in particular (as Holland J notes) “the length of, and the reasons for, the delay”'.[128]The overall effect of the caselaw is that although there is no fixed checklist of factors that should be considered when a tribunal is asked to exercise its just and equitable discretion, certain issues will commonly be relevant to that decision. These factors, considered below, include:(1) the length of and reasons for the delay;(2) the prejudice which each party would suffer as a result of granting, or refusing to grant, an extension; and(3) the potential merits of the claim.[129]Whilst no one factor has primacy, the Court of Appeal in Adedeji cited above did use the words “in particular” before the words “length of and reasons for” the delay. Length of delay is clearly a highly relevant factor. In some case it has been decisive as a sole factor.[130]In this case, it is , of course, substantial, at over 8 years – over 32 times the 3 month time limit prescribed by Parliament for such claims.[131]Turning to the reasons, the claimant has advanced very few. One of them is her health, which she says was not good in this period, and she has disabilities. The Tribunal takes this into account, but the claimant was, firstly, able, to bring two Tribunal claims in 2014 and 2015, and , secondly , even to appeal to the EAT in December 2016, when she appeared in person. She had, of course, been dismissed by then.[132]The claimant has given no explanation why she did not bring any of these claims sooner, and at the latest within three months of her dismissal in April 2016.[133]The claimant , whilst failing to give any real explanation for why she did not bring the claims sooner, has only really explained why she has done so now. That is because she was, she says, advised by the DWP to do so. The Tribunal has no written confirmation of that, but has no reason to doubt that this is the claimant’s perception of what she has been told by the DWP. Quite why the DWP should so advise (or even require) the claimant to bring such stale Employment Tribunal claims is unclear. The Employment Judge lacks sufficient knowledge of how the claimant’s entitlement to PIP may be affected by any potential liability on the part of the respondent for any illness or disability of the claimant which has led to her inability to work, but that is a matter for the claimant and the DWP to discuss further. The claimant can at least show this judgment to the DWP to show that she has tried to make these claims, and why they have failed. The relevance of this, of course, however, is the claimant has explained more about why she has now brought these claims, than she has about why she did not do so earlier. 26 of 27[134]The claimant’s delay in bringing these claims is, therefore, fatal to them continuing, and they must be struck out. That is not the only issue, as additional issues arise as to whether any of the claims that the claimant seeks to make would also fall foul of the rule in Henderson v Henderson as claims which she has previously made in her two previous Employment Tribunal claims in 2014 and 2015, or which could and should have been made in those claims. Such claims are prohibited in subsequent proceedings if they have been, or could have been, included in previous proceedings which have been concluded.[135]From a , hopefully, careful and thorough examination of all that the claimant has recently said, written or submitted to the Tribunal it is clear that she wishes to complain, or complain again, about events which mainly occurred in 2013, 2014, and which were , or could have been, included in the claims that she made to the Tribunal in 2014 and 2015. That the claimant has included so many documents as attachments to her emails which were included in the bundle for either of those previous Tribunal claims demonstrates how the claimant is seeking to re-litigate matters which were, or could have been, part of those claims.[136]Whilst her claim of unfair dismissal probably was not, and could not have been , included in those claims (although the claimant thought it was was) all her other claims, as far as the Tribunal can discern them, probably do. That is another basis , quite apart from time limits. upon which those claims must have no reasonable prospects of success, and must be struck out.
Conclusion
[137]For all these reasons , these claims must be dismissed. The Employment Judge trusts that the length of this judgment shows how he has considered carefully the claimant’s claims, and made every allowance for her lack of representation, and her disabilities. The Employment Judge sympathises with the claimant , who clearly has health issues, and has taken these steps believing that she was required to do so in order to retain her entitlement to PIP. Whether that is right or not, the fact is that the claimant cannot now seek to pursue these claims, whatever they are, before the Employment Tribunal. Approved by: