Dr R J Heal v Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and others: 3332712/2018
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 July 2021 |
| Citation | 3332712/2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 27 July 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Number: 3332712/2018
1 of 34
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Dr R J Heal
Respondent: (1) Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
(2) The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the
University of Oxford
(3) The Principal and Fellows of the Manchester Academy
and Harris College in the University of Oxford
(4) Health Education England
(5) The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Before: Employment Judge A James
Sitting at: London Central
Date: 23 and 24 June 2021
Appearances
For the claimant: Did not appear and was not represented
For the respondents: R1 - Mr R Moretto, counsel
R2 & R3 - Ms A Beale, counsel
R4 – Ms C Wheatley, solicitor
R5 - Ms E Hodgetts, counsel
JUDGMENT
(1) The following claims are struck out and are dismissed because they have no
reasonable prospect of success:
a. All whistleblowing claims against the first and second respondent (Part
IVA Employment Rights Act 1996).
b. All remaining Part 5 Equality Act 2010 claims against all of the
respondents.
(2) All of the claims raised in the proceedings are struck out on the alternative basis
that they were not submitted in time and the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to
hear them, save for any claim in respect of the claimant’s application for
Case Number: 3332712/2018
2 of 34
employment with the second respondent in or about February 2018 for the post
of Research Assistant – Dementia Studies in the Department of Psychiatry. Any
such claim is covered by (1) above in any event.
(3) Any claims in relation to the claimant’s application for employment with the
second respondent in or about February 2018 for the post of Research Assistant
– Dementia Studies in the Department of Psychiatry; and/or any claim in respect
of his application for a degree in medicine; are struck out on the alternative basis
that they amount to an abuse of process.
(4) All of the claims raised in the claim form were also totally without merit.
(5) Insofar as the claimant purports to raise any further claims within the tribunal’s
jurisdiction within this claim, which have not already been struck out (no such
claims having been articulated by the claimant in any communications with the
tribunal; and there being no other discernible claims that fall within the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal which have any reasonable prospects of success), such claims
are struck out because they have no reasonable prospects of success and they
are not being actively pursued.
(6) To the extent necessary, the names of the respondents are amended to reflect
the names set out in the heading above.
REASONS
The Issues for PH3
1. The issues for determination at this preliminary hearing are set out in Annex A.
Subject to minor modifications, they are as set out in Annex B to the orders made
following CPH2 – see below. This hearing will be referred to as PH3 although this is
in fact the second, rather than the third public preliminary hearing in relation to these
combined claims. PH2, which had been listed for hearing on 19 and 20 May 2021
on the disability issue, did not go ahead because of a failure by the claimant to
comply with employment tribunal orders. Unless orders have been made in relation
to that non-compliance. Those orders need not concern us further in relation to this
claim, in light of the conclusions reached on the PH3 issues, which have effectively
dealt with all and any legal claims raised in this matter, regardless of the claimant’s
disability status.
The Hearing
2. These claims are concerned with the Oxford Doctoral Course in Clinical Psychology,-
referred to below as ‘The Course’. It has been previously referred to as the Clinical
Psychology Programme (the CPP) and is referred to in the list of issues as the Oxford
CPP.
3. A preliminary hearing for case management purposes took place by video link on 5
February 2021 (CPH2). Case Management Orders (CMOs) dated 15 February 2021
were sent out following that hearing. The draft issues for that hearing were attached
Case Number: 3332712/2018
3 of 34
as Annex B to that order. None of the parties have applied to amend those issues. I
have however been asked to determine the question of employment status and the
strike out claims first, before going on to consider the time limit issue, to avoid the
claims being dismissed on time grounds alone. This is because counsel for the
respondents are concerned that could have the effect of encouraging the claimant
to make further applications outside of the Clearing House process, and then bring
new claims. The issues have been dealt with in the order requested by the
respondents, although I also take the view that the reasons for striking out the claims
set out above are set out in the alternative in any event, in case one or all of the other
strike out grounds relied on are held to be erroneous.
4. Following CPH2, all of the claims in these proceedings were struck out on 6 May
2021, save for any Part 5 Equality Act 2010 claims against all five respondents and
any whistleblowing claims against the first and second respondents only.
5. The respondents had provided a 962-page bundle; an authorities bundle; witness
statements from Professor David Clark, Professor and Chair of Experimental
Psychology within the University’s Department of Experimental Psychology; John
Geddes, Head of Department of Psychiatry of the University; Simon Denton, Head
of HR Operations for the Trust; and Professor Paul Salkovskis, Director of the Oxford
Institute of Clinical Psychology Training and Research which is part of the Trust.
Skeleton arguments were also provided on behalf of the first respondent, the second
and third respondents and the fifth respondent.
6. The claimant did not take part in the hearing. He has now failed to take part in any
of the hearings since CPH1 in July 2020 (which hearing he did not participate in
either).
7. An email had been sent to the parties/their representatives by myself from a UK
Court Skype account on 22 June 2021 at 16:51 which stated:
I have received the bundle, 4 witness statements and the skeleton
argument on behalf of R1. If there are any other documents you would like
me to consider prior to the hearing commencing, please send them to this
email address as soon as possible.
8. The claimant emailed the tribunal late on the evening of 22 June 2021. In that email,
the claimant continues to maintain that the holding of hearings via video link “violate
the Human Rights of a private property owner by unlawfully demanding the
requisition of private property for use by the Employment Tribunal”. That assertion
was answered in paragraphs 18) to 22) of the record of CPH2 dated 15 February
2021. For ease of access and completeness, those paragraphs have been copied
and pasted into Annex B below. Nothing further need be added here.
9. Until the evening of 22 June, the claimant had not provided any disclosure
documents in relation to this hearing. In the email to the tribunal and the respondent’s
representatives, the claimant makes brief submissions and there are 15 attachments
to it. Having heard representations from the parties, I have decided not to consider
or take into account the content of any of those attachments. Orders were made at
CPH2 in relation to the exchange of documents and preparation of a bundle of
documents. The claimant has not filed a witness statement in which he refers to the
documents, or explains their relevance. Nor are they paginated.
10. The claimant is familiar with the tribunal process due to his continued involvement in
this long-standing and complex litigation. Orders are made by tribunals to ensure
that claims are ready for hearing; to ensure that the parties understand each other’s
To continue reading
Request your trial