U Prasad v Epsom & St Helier Hospital NHS Trust & Anor

An employment tribunal must identify a party’s case by an objective reading of its statements of case. It may clarify and refine claims already advanced, particularly for an unrepresented litigant, but it must not enter the adversarial arena by prompting a new claim, respondent or factual case.

Consolidating claims does not itself make an existing respondent liable in a later claim. Where the ET1 and particulars clearly identify an individual as the sole intended respondent, the tribunal need not enquire whether the claimant instead meant to sue the employer.

The claimant, a consultant cardiologist formerly employed by the Trust, presented a sixth employment tribunal claim after earlier proceedings against the Trust. The ET1 named only Jacqueline Totterdell, the Trust’s chief executive, as respondent. The claim was later consolidated for case-management purposes with two claims against the Trust.

The Employment Tribunal struck out Claim 6. It held that the pleaded claim was against Ms Totterdell alone and disclosed no viable claim against her. On appeal, the claimant contended that consolidation made the Trust a respondent, that her particulars also advanced a claim against the Trust, and that the Employment Judge should have asked whether she intended to sue the Trust.

The central issue was whether an objective reading of the ET1 and particulars showed that the Trust was an intended respondent to Claim 6.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge made no error of law in treating Claim 6 as a claim against Ms Totterdell alone and striking it out.

2. The issues in tribunal proceedings arise from an objective analysis of the statements of case. A tribunal may clarify and assist an unrepresented party to refine an existing case, but the choice of case remains with the parties. It must not invite an amendment or new claim merely because a different claim might have been available.

3. The consolidation of Claims 4, 5 and 6 made the Trust and Ms Totterdell respondents in the consolidated proceedings for case-management purposes. It did not alter the facts pleaded in Claim 6 or create a substantive claim against the Trust.

4. Objectively read, the ET1 and particulars showed that the claimant sought to hold Ms Totterdell personally responsible for the Trust’s earlier acts and for declining personally to deal with reinstatement requests. References to the Trust rehearsed allegations already made in earlier claims. They did not plead conduct by Ms Totterdell for which the Trust could be liable, or identify the Trust as an intended respondent to Claim 6.

5. There was no ambiguity requiring enquiry. Asking whether the claimant meant to sue the Trust would have gone beyond permissible clarification and would have introduced a different case. The tribunal was therefore entitled to determine the strike-out application on the pleaded case.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed: [2026] EAT 22.
• Employment Tribunal: EJ Morton struck out Claim 6 in a decision sent to the parties on 8 July 2024.