Wirral University Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Moriarty

Wirral University Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Moriarty

The tribunal was correct to refuse to strike out particulars 2, 7, 8, and 10 as an abuse of process because they had not previously been litigated, the first claim was withdrawn at an early stage without clarity as to issues, and the Claimant’s status as a litigant in person made it inappropriate to bar her from raising these matters now.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Wirral University Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Respondent/claimant: Ms Moriarty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Particulars for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Unfair Dismissal, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Case Management, Jurisdiction
Employment Law Civil Procedure Constructive Unfair Dismissal Abuse of Process Res Judicata Case Management Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wirral University Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Appellant/respondent

Ms Moriarty

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Particulars for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal erred in refusing to strike out particulars 2, 7, 8, and 10 as an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal misunderstood or misapplied the Respondent’s arguments regarding inclusion of facts in the first claim
  3. 3 Whether there was inconsistency in the tribunal’s reasoning regarding what could or should have been raised in the first claim

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal was correct to refuse to strike out particulars 2, 7, 8, and 10 as an abuse of process because they had not previously been litigated, the first claim was withdrawn at an early stage without clarity as to issues, and the Claimant’s status as a litigant in person made it inappropriate to bar her from raising these matters now.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.