The Claimant had made 5 previous claims against the NHS Trust. Claim 6 named the CEO of the trust as the sole Respondent. The Claimant argued that the effect of a previous consolidation of Claim 6 with previous claims was to make the Trust a Respondent to Claim 6. The ET did not agree and struck out Claim 6. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. It was not an error of law for the Judge not to treat the case management decision to consolidate Claim 6 with Claims and 5 as having the effect of making Claim 6 a claim in substance against the Trust. Nor was there any error in the approach of the Judge to the strike out application: on an objective reading of the particulars of claim it was clear that the intended Respondent was solely the CEO of the Trust.