Ms F Woolford v Knowle Green Medical Surgery and North West Surrey Integrated Care Services (NCIS) Ltd: 3311148/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claims for whistleblowing detriments set out at Issues 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 as follows are dismissed for want of jurisdiction as they are out of time:a. “In or around 20222, the respondent stopped inviting the claimant on reception nights out;b. On 8 September 2023 NP sent an email to WA saying the claimant should not be told about training and told the claimant to her face that she should not be doing training in front of other members of staff;c. In 2023 Knowle Green Medical Centre failed to give the claimant a £100 Christmas present.”REASONS
[2]Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons are set out in the Record of a Preliminary Hearing document and are repeated herein. Approved by: Employment Judge Bartlett 16 October 2025[1]The claimant’s claims for reconsideration are dismissed.[2]By emails dated 26 November and 21 November 2025 the claimant applied for a reconsideration of my decisions made at the Case Management Hearing which took place on 15 October 2025. The documents submitted are lengthy comprising one 7 page document and one 9 page document. They appear to have been prepared by using AI (large language models) and are very wide ranging.[3]They make applications to reconsider my decisions to:a. Strike out part of the claims,b. Refuse the application to amend andc. Find some claims were out of time and refuse to extend time.[4]In addition, there are many more issues raised in the applications.[5]I will respond to what I think the application relates. Dismissal claims[6]The Case Management Summary sets out that the claimant made an application to amend her claim to include a claim for automatic unfair dismissal. The document records at para 16 that this was the only issue in respect of which an application to amend was made. I dismissed that application for the reasons set out in that document.[7]The claimant is asking for reconsideration of that decision and now seems, though it is not entirely clear, to be saying that she had also wanted to add an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.[8]I had not understood her application to amend to include both automatic and unfair dismissal claims and I sought clarification at the hearing as recorded at para 16. I therefore concluded that the application to amend was in respect of automatic unfair dismissal only.[9]I consider that the claimant is seeking to re-argue my decision to refuse the application to amend and she disagrees with it. I do not consider that there is a reasonable prospect that my decision will be varied or revoked and therefore I refuse the application. I have applied Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.[10]I also record that if the application to amend had included both an automatic unfair dismissal and unfair dismissal claim, I would have refused the application to amend both claims for the reasons I have set out in that document. Incorrect Date at para 42[11]This is a typographical error and is corrected from 27 June 2023 to 27 June 2024. Paragraph 77[12]This is generic detail about schedule of losses and does not have any import. Harassment[13]As set out above, the application to amend was only in respect of automatic unfair dismissal. Harassment was discussed at the case management hearing but when it was explained to the claimant that the unwanted conduct had to relate to a protected characteristic she accepted that she did not have a relevant characteristic and did not pursue harassment claims under s26 Equality Act.[14]The claimant now appears to attempt to resile from that discussion. I do not accept her request to change her mind and it remains that harassment was not part of the application to amend because it was expressly abandoned. As such there is nothing to reconsider. Occupational Health[15]At the hearing the claimant raised a failure to make an Occupational health referral after I decided the application to amend. This was put on hold as it was raised when I was deciding the time and jurisdictional points and it was not considered any further. The respondent did state that an occupational referral had been made but the claimant failed to attend twice.[16]If the claimant wishes to pursue a failure to make an OH referral as an issue she will have to renew/make a new application to amend and make it clear the issue she wants added by putting it in the form “on X date Y did/did not do Z” Disclosure 3[17]The claimant expressly stated at the hearing that she did not rely on disclosure 3 at the preliminary hearing. This issue does not form part of the case for that reason. She has requested that she be permitted to now include that disclosure. As this issue was previously in the List of Issues I have decided to include this in the List of Issues as I consider it will not cause the respondent prejudice because it was previously included.The List of Issues
[18]Except as set out in this document the List of Issues remain as set out in the CMO from 15 October 2025. This means that Disclosure 3 is now included. Approved by: