Mr F Gohar v Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust: 3313461/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3313461/2023
Between
Mr F GoharClaimantBuckinghamshire Healthcare NHS TrustRespondentDate 1 August 2025
JUDGMENT
No part of the claim is struck out.
REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 29 June 2025, the Tribunal told the Respondent that, if it still pursued strike out, having received the Claimant’s 26 April 2025 correspondence (which included a letter dated 25 April), it would have to make another application which addressed the contents.[2]By letter dated 1 July 2025, the Respondent made an application. Contrary to the orders sent on 29 June 2025, the Respondent made no reference to the Claimant’s 26 April email and attachments.[3]The Claimant objected to strike out by email on 2 July (which contained no new substantive information, but asserted that he had already complied with the Tribunal’s orders).[4]By email dated 3 July 2025, the Respondent's representative wrote to the Tribunal again. This time it did comment on what the Claimant had sent with his 26 April correspondence and stated (amongst other things) that “we submit that the evidence does not identify a relevant protected act in accordance with section 27(2) the Equality Act 2010”. That particular sentence would only identify grounds for strike out if the argument it contains is that there are no reasonable prospects of success.[5]I am satisfied that the Claimant’s correspondence demonstrates sufficient attempts to comply with the orders that strike out would not be proportionate even if it were true that there were breaches of the orders. Furthermore, I am satisfied that he has supplied the information required by the orders, and that strike out for alleged breaches of the orders and/or unreasonable conduct of the litigation would not be appropriate.[6]To the extent that the Respondent argues that the things identified by the Claimant as his alleged protected acts do not actually contain any protected Page 1 of 2 Case No: 3313461/2023 act, that is a matter that can be addressed at the final hearing, with evidence and submissions from both parties. I do not strike out on the basis of alleged no reasonable prospects of success.[7]The only protected acts that the Claimant can rely on at the final hearing are those identified/specified in the correspondence to date. If there is ever a point in time when the Claimant seeks to rely on any other protected act, then he will need to make a written application to amend the claim, which may be granted or may be refused.[8]The parties must now carry out their respective disclosure obligations. I am satisfied that the Claimant’s correspondence provides the Respondent with sufficient information about the alleged protected acts that it can reasonably search for relevant documents in its own possession and make enquiries to others who might hold relevant documents that are in the Respondent’s control.[9]The Respondent must submit its amended response within 14 days of the date of this judgment. The other case management orders must be complied with by the dates stated in the original orders subject (as already notified) to the fact that the variation in the Respondent's representative’s letter of 3 April 2025 have been agreed.[10]All hearings remain scheduled to take place as previously notified. Approved by: