Midwife with 22 years' service sees discrimination claims struck out after delay
A Reading tribunal struck out a midwife's discrimination claims against Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust after finding they could not be fairly heard, but allowed her unfair and wrongful dismissal claims to proceed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-running-litigation
- #vulnerable-litigant
- #strike-out-application
- #discrimination-claims
- #unfair-dismissal
- #wrongful-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a midwife from 23 March 1998 until summarily dismissed on 9 March 2020 for gross misconduct.
- The claimant submitted her claim to the employment tribunal on 19 July 2020, alleging unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and various discrimination claims.
- Despite multiple preliminary hearings and orders for further particulars, the claimant's discrimination claims remained unclear and undefined.
- The respondent applied to strike out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued, citing inordinate delay and prejudice.
- The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims could proceed, but struck out all other claims due to the impossibility of a fair hearing.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began working for the respondent as a midwife.
-
Brexit referendum
Claimant references the Brexit referendum as a starting point for alleged discrimination.
-
Unwelcomed letter
Claimant received a letter from her manager cancelling a clinic for Polish-speaking women.
-
Meeting request
Manager contacted claimant at home to arrange a meeting, which claimant found surprising and worrying.
-
Alleged harassment incident
Claimant alleges harassment, bullying, and discrimination on religious grounds by her manager.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Claim presented
Claimant submitted her ET1 claim form to the employment tribunal.
-
First preliminary hearing
Preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Shore; final hearing listed for October 2022.
-
Second preliminary hearing
Preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Reindorf; further case management ordered.
-
Third preliminary hearing
Preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Anstis; attempts to agree list of issues largely unsuccessful.
-
Fourth preliminary hearing
Hearing ineffective due to building access issues; written submissions ordered.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Anstis struck out all claims except unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's discrimination claims should be struck out for not being actively pursued or for unreasonable conduct, given that despite multiple hearings and orders, the claims remained unclear and undefined.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims except unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The judge found that the claimant had not actively pursued her discrimination claims, leading to inordinate delay and prejudice to the respondent. The claims were too unclear to be fairly heard, even with further case management. No compensation was awarded as the remaining claims are yet to be determined.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring multiple claims, make sure each one is clearly linked to specific incidents and legal grounds from the start.
- Respond promptly to tribunal orders for further particulars; failing to clarify your claims can lead to them being struck out.
- Long delays in progressing your case, even if not entirely your fault, can result in a fair hearing being impossible.
- Representing yourself can be challenging; consider seeking advice to ensure your claims are properly pleaded.
A long career, a complex claim
This case shows what can happen when a long-serving employee brings a wide range of claims but struggles to define them clearly. The midwife, who had worked for the NHS for 22 years, alleged unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and multiple forms of discrimination spanning several years. However, the tribunal found that her discrimination claims were so vague and poorly particularised that they could not be fairly heard, even after extensive case management.
The importance of clarity
The claimant had provided a detailed timeline of events, but it was unclear which incidents related to which legal claims. Despite several preliminary hearings and orders to provide further particulars, the claims remained undefined. The respondent applied to strike them out, citing inordinate delay and the impossibility of a fair hearing. The tribunal agreed, striking out all discrimination claims but allowing the dismissal claims to proceed.
What this means for similar cases
This case highlights the risks of bringing multiple claims without clearly linking each incident to a specific legal ground. Tribunals expect claimants to set out their case clearly from the outset. If you are representing yourself, it is especially important to seek advice on how to plead your claims properly. Delay in clarifying your case can lead to strike-out, even if you have a potentially valid claim.
Similar cases
Former employee's dismissal claims thrown out after failing to attend final hearing
The tribunal dismissed unfair and wrongful dismissal claims after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing, and ordered her to pay £1,400 in costs for repeated delays and non-compliance.
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
Dismissed after raising health and safety concerns: a partial win for the employee
A former employee of Ian Henery Solicitors Ltd was initially found to be unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns, but the unfair dismissal judgment was later revoked. The tribunal confirmed wrongful dismissal and awarded £3,336 in total.
Unfair dismissal and unpaid wages: former employee awarded £12,503
A former employee has been awarded £12,503 after an employment tribunal found she was unfairly dismissed, not given notice, and had wages unlawfully deducted by RR Swami Ltd.