Hospital Trust Wins Appeal Over Sixth Employment Tribunal Claim
An NHS Trust has successfully defended an appeal regarding a sixth employment tribunal claim brought by a former consultant cardiologist.
• public
NHS Trust Not Liable in Consultant's Sixth Claim, Rules Appeal Tribunal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal brought by a former consultant cardiologist, Miss U Prasad, against Epsom and St Helier Hospital NHS Trust. The tribunal upheld a previous decision that Miss Prasad's sixth employment tribunal claim was aimed at an individual rather than the Trust itself.
Background to the Sixth Claim
Miss Prasad had been employed as a consultant cardiologist by the Trust between 2010 and 2020. Following an incident in 2012, she raised concerns and was subsequently subject to allegations regarding her own clinical practice. This led to an "MHPS" process and disciplinary proceedings, culminating in her dismissal in June 2020.
Over the years, Miss Prasad had lodged multiple previous claims with the employment tribunal, including allegations of sex and race discrimination, victimisation, harassment, equal pay, and whistleblowing detriment. These earlier claims were dismissed.
Her sixth claim, presented in October 2021, named Ms Jacqueline Totterdell, then Chief Executive Officer of the Trust, as the sole respondent. The claim form indicated grounds for unfair dismissal, race, and sex discrimination, as well as whistleblowing. However, no detailed particulars of claim were initially attached.
Tribunal's Focus on Respondent Identity
A key issue in the appeal was whether the initial tribunal judge was correct in striking out Claim 6 against Ms Totterdell, and whether the Trust should have been considered a respondent.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal reviewed the original claim form and subsequent particulars provided by Miss Prasad. It noted that while the claim was consolidated with previous claims involving the Trust, the ET1 form clearly identified Ms Totterdell as the respondent. Miss Prasad's stated intention, as indicated in her written submissions and correspondence, was to hold Ms Totterdell personally responsible for the Trust's alleged actions.
The appeal tribunal referenced established legal principles, including guidance from the Court of Appeal in cases such as Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. These principles emphasise that tribunals must base decisions on an objective analysis of the statements of case and should not prompt parties to expand or modify their claims.
No Ambiguity Found
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found no ambiguity regarding the intended respondent for Claim 6. It concluded that the judge had correctly interpreted the particulars of claim as asserting personal responsibility against Ms Totterdell, rather than introducing a new claim against the Trust.
The tribunal stated that to have made enquiries about whether the Trust should be a respondent would have gone beyond refining existing arguments and risked introducing new claims or factual matters. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Read the entire judgment here: Miss U Prasad v 1) Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust 2) Jacqueline Totterdell [2026] EAT 22
