Three days before my final hearing was due to start, the Tribunal wrote to say it could not go ahead. There was no judge available!

Two years of preparation. Witness statements exchanged. A 622 page bundle. Both sides ready. Gone in a single letter.

The Respondent has confirmed the only week that works for them, and it suits us. Subject to the Tribunal formally listing it, the hearing will take place on 8 to 12 February 2027.

It is not the judge's fault. He apologised and offered to sit himself in February. Judges cannot hear cases if there are not enough of them.

The Ministry of Justice published its figures in June. In the year to March, 50,000 claims were brought to the employment tribunals. Over the same year, the tribunals managed to finish 26,000 cases. For every two claims that arrived, roughly one was dealt with. The number of open claims has climbed to 64,000, up by more than half in twelve months. Some hearings are now being listed as far ahead as 2029.

Now hold that against what Parliament has just done. From 1 October the time limit for bringing a claim doubles from three months to six. From January the qualifying period for unfair dismissal falls and the cap on compensation is removed, bringing 6.3 million more employees into scope. The Government's own assessment expects 6,900 extra cases, 1,300 of which will need a judge and a hearing, and 21,000 more people going through conciliation before they even get that far. 

I have no quarrel with people having protection at work. My point is narrower. If you give six million people a right and you do not give the tribunals the judges to enforce it, you have not given them anything. The right to bring a claim is being widened into a system that cannot hear the claims it already has. A right you cannot enforce is not a right. It is a press release.

I can wait. I have a barrister and people who have helped pay for him. Most of those in the queue have neither. They have been sacked or discriminated against and they are told to come back in three years and a great many of them give up. A queue long enough stops being a delay and becomes a filter.

There is one consolation. Both sides have exchanged witness statements, so their evidence is signed and cannot be improved. The evidence around mine still can and there were lines of enquiry we could never have finished in the days we had left. My solicitors sent the first requests this week. The case will be in better shape in February than it was last week.

On funding, preparing for a five day hearing is the most expensive part of any case and that work was done. Some of it will need doing again. I am waiting on my legal team for the detail and will tell you plainly once I know. Every pound still goes directly to them rather than to me.

I know what it takes to put money into somebody else's fight. Everything so far exists because people who have never met me decided it was worth backing. If you are able to give again it goes straight towards February. If you can only share the page, that is worth just as much to me. And if you can do neither, you have my thanks all the same, because you got me this far.

As always, I will keep you all informed.

At 5:30 this evening, witness statements were formally exchanged with the Trust. That is one of the last major steps before a hearing. Both sides now know exactly what the other's witnesses will say, and there is no going back from it.

My final five day hearing begins on 24 August. That is twenty days from today.

Who is representing me?

I want to say something about my representation, because it is your money that has paid for it.

My barrister has been at the Bar since 1991 and now spends much of his practice on belief discrimination. He has run this argument before and won it. He acted in a claim in which an employment tribunal held that opposing critical race theory was a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act, which is about as close to a precedent for my case as exists. He has also been on the receiving end of this himself, challenged it, and won. He is not approaching my case from a distance.

That matters because of where the Trust has drawn its line. It has admitted that nine of my ten pleaded beliefs qualify for protection under the Equality Act. It will not admit the last one, which is being anti-woke. It says it does not know what that means. So, a real part of this hearing will turn on whether a belief like mine is protected at all.

What a win would actually mean

I want to be straight with you about this, because I would rather under-promise.

An employment tribunal is a first-instance court. Its decisions are not binding on other tribunals in the way a Court of Appeal judgment would be. So nobody should tell you that this case will change the law at a stroke. It will not.

What it would do is this

It would put a finding on the public record that an NHS trust unlawfully discriminated against an employee because of his beliefs. Tribunal judgments are published. They are reported in the legal press and often in the national press. Employers read them, and so do the solicitors who advise employers. A finding against a large NHS trust on these facts would be noticed.

It would add to a line of authority that is still being built. Over the last few years tribunals have held that gender-critical beliefs are protected, and that opposing critical race theory is protected. If a tribunal finds that a belief like mine is protected too, that becomes another decision the next person in my position can point to. That is how this area of law has developed. Case by case, brought by individuals.

It would also settle a practical question for people who work in the NHS. More than a million people do. Some of them will want to stand for election, or hold views their employer finds inconvenient. At the moment there is no clear answer to what happens to them if they do. This case asks a tribunal to give one.

And it would mean that what happened to me is on the record, rather than buried inside an internal process that ended with a finding of no case to answer and no explanation of why it was ever started.

If I lose, none of that happens. The message to the next NHS employee thinking of standing for a party their employer dislikes is that it is not worth the risk.

The case is not funded to the end

One thing worth saying plainly, because people reasonably ask. I never handle any of this money. That is how CrowdJustice works. Everything pledged goes directly to my legal team, into their account rather than mine. It pays for counsel and for solicitors and for nothing else. I could not spend a penny of it on anything else even if I wanted to.

I have been careful with what you have given me and I will carry on being careful. But five days in a tribunal is the most expensive part of any case, not the cheapest, and the costs do not stop on the day the hearing starts. There is counsel for the full week, the solicitors' work in preparing and running it, and whatever follows on remedy.

I am funding this against an organisation with public money behind it and a firm of solicitors on retainer. That asymmetry is the whole reason this page exists.

If you have already given, you have done your part and I am grateful for it. If you are able to give again, or simply to share this page with someone who has not seen it, it goes straight to getting this heard properly.

Thank you

CrowdJustice gives me no way to reply to donors individually or to see contact details, so as I have said in previous updates, this is the only way I have of saying it.

I will keep you all informed.

Daniel Matchett

Dear Crowd Funders

Thank you for supporting me this far in my litigation battle against Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Trust. I believe that as the “People’s Army” we need to stand together to fight the anti-woke and anti-British establishment.

I wanted to let you know that my article in the Daily Sceptic is now up!

“Why I’m Suing the NHS for Discriminating Against Me for Being a Reform Candidate”.

https://dailysceptic.org/2026/06/03/why-im-suing-the-nhs-for-discriminating-against-me-for-being-a-reform-candidate/

I am now getting ready for trial in Manchester Employment Tribunal on 24 August to 28 August 2026. It is very expensive to run a legal case, so if you could offer any support that would be really helpful. I am so grateful to everybody who has already donated - there is no facility to email everybody to personally thank them because if there was I would do. 

Danny Matchett

17.06.2026

Dear Crowd Funders

As I write this whilst attending the Reform UK National Conference at the Birmingham NEC, I am still mesmerised by the movement we have started. The energy here is electric, and Reform UK is now planning what we will do on day one when we are elected.

For me, the work does not stop here. I have much to do between now and then as a cabinet member for health in Lancashire County Council, and part of this mission is to continue challenging and changing the woke agendas that have taken root within our institutions—most notably within the NHS.

This legal fight remains a key part of that journey. By standing up against retaliation and unfair treatment, we are not only defending my personal rights but also setting a precedent for others who may face similar pressures in the future.

I also want to remind all of you—our incredible supporters—that the case has now been listed for a five-day trial in Manchester in August 2025. Your backing is absolutely vital as we prepare for that moment.

Please continue to share this campaign widely and, if you are able, donate to the crowdfund so that together we can change this country for the better.

Daniel Matchett

07.09.2025

Dear Crowd Funders,

Just a quick update to let you know about my case.

My trial has been set down for 5 days from Monday 24 August 2026 to 28 August 2026 at the Manchester Employment tribunal. The case will be in-person. The Trust will call 5 or 6 witnesses against my case.

My case is a belief discrimination case, that is I am claiming the Trust discriminated against me because of my beliefs which are:

            a) The country should engineer high economic growth rather than       redistribution;

b) Preserving / protecting national sovereignty;

c) Protecting national borders;

d) Strict law and order / the preservation and sanctity of the rule of law;

e) Low tax / Making work pay;

f) Opposing state mandated vaccinations including in healthcare;

g) Scrapping net zero, scrapping environmental levies;

h) Free speech / the sanctity of democracy / the institution of Parliament;

i) The value of tradition and scepticism of rapid social change; and

j) “Anti- woke” (woke being progressive, environmentalist or traditional “leftist” ideologies or beliefs).

The Trust has conceded that all my beliefs apart from “anti -woke” beliefs are philosophical beliefs and protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal will have to decide whether “anti-woke” beliefs are protected or not. The main question for the tribunal will be whether or not the Trust treated me less favourably, by subjecting me to the disciplinary proceedings (and my other claims), because of my beliefs.

I remain committed to the case and intend to ensure that employers know they cannot attempt to discipline anybody who has traditional, pro-common sense, pro-British sovereignty and anti-woke beliefs.

Any help will be gratefully received.

Daniel Matchett

6 August 2025

Dear Crowd Funders

I write to update you about my case and an unusual development.

Shortly after being elected as Reform councillor for Whitworth & Bacup and as part of Cabinet for Health and Wellbeing and Chair of the Lancashire Wellbeing Board, I received a letter from Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust inviting me to sit on their Council of Governors. Given my extensive experience as a mental health nurse and my employment with the trust since 2006, I am keen to sit on the council myself as I can provide a wealth of experience of day-to-day clinical matters. However, this is the NHS Trust I am suing in my claim for belief discrimination for the way they treated me because I campaigned as the Reform candidate for Darwen and Rossendale in the July 2024 general election.

I am waiting to see whether there is a conflict of interest in this appointment, but I intend if at all possible to sit on their board of governors. I believe that their attempt to silence me really has interfered with the democratic system. It would be an affront to the voters in Lancashire if their chosen elected representative cannot sit on the board of their local hospital Trust because of what I claim is their discriminatory behaviour.

My Case Management Conference is taking place on 1 July 2025. At this hearing we will find out the date for disclosure, witness statement exchange and when my trial will be. Given that the employment tribunal system is currently struggling, trial will likely be sometime in 2027.

Thank you for supporting my case. I intend to see it through to ensure that employers know that they cannot attempt to discipline anybody who has traditional, pro-common sense, pro-British sovereignty and anti-woke beliefs.

Daniel Matchett

20 June 2025

Dear Crowd Funders,

First, I have some very welcome personal news to report: I was successful in winning Whitworth & Bacup ward and now proudly sit as a Reform councillor on Lancashire County Council. Despite an attempt to cancel me by my employer, the people have chosen me to represent them. That’s what my fight is all about, democracy in action.

Things are moving forward swiftly in my case. The Trust filed their defence in January and there is a Case Management Conference on 1 July 2025. At that point, the litigation steps will be diarised, including disclosure (where the parties exchange the documents that will form part of the evidence in the case), exchange of witness statements and the trial hearing date. My lawyers tell me that a trial will be heard in Spring / Summer 2026 in Manchester employment tribunal.

I am fully committed to taking this case to a final resolution, ensuring that employers must recognise that standing for Parliament is a courageous and valuable process for the whole of society and not something to be punished. I hope to secure employment protections for all who want to stand up and be counted for our great country.

I can only do it with your help, although I do understand all the financial struggles people are facing. If you can contribute to my legal fund I would be immensely grateful.

Danny Matchett

Reform Councillor

12.05.2025

I wanted to keep you all informed about the latest developments. The NHS trust was sent court documents on 2nd January and they now have 28 days to respond. I will provide further updates as soon as I have more news.

In the meantime, I deeply appreciate your continued support—it means the world. 

Thank you!

Daniel

I wanted to share a few important updates regarding my case and express my heartfelt gratitude for your continued support.

I am incredibly grateful for the generosity and solidarity shown by all of you. Last Friday, 29th November 2024, my story was featured in the Free Speech Union newsletter, which has brought much-needed visibility to this case.

Unfortunately, CrowdJustice does not allow me to contact each of you individually, but please know that every donation and message of support makes a tremendous difference. Together, we are making a stand for fairness and free speech.

I have now instructed Elliot Hammer of Branch Austin McCormick to formally submit the necessary paperwork for an employment tribunal. This fight is too important to ignore. The discriminatory and disrespectful treatment I experienced must not become the norm for anyone standing as a candidate for Reform UK or any other legitimate political party, whether in local council or national elections.

This case is about more than my personal experience—it’s about ensuring that employees, especially those in the public sector, feel confident that they can participate in the democratic process without fear of retaliation or unjust reprimands from their employers.

We will see this through to the end. Thank you for standing with me as we push for fairness, transparency, and a better future for all who stand for public office.

Your unwavering support is a beacon of hope, and I will continue to fight for justice with your backing.

Kindest regards,

Daniel Matchett

In late July, after being threatened with dismissal for refusing to take down a professional campaign video relating to my parliamentary candidacy with Reform UK, I was informed of the outcome of my preliminary investigation hearing. The Trust claimed I had brought them into disrepute and issued me a formal warning. When I asked for a detailed explanation of the policy breaches, despite having already done my due diligence, I was provided with a letter dated 1st August 2024.

What stood out in this document were two allegations that I had violated the Trust’s Equality & Diversity and Human Rights Policy, including serious accusations of racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic comments. These claims were absurd, and I refused to accept a reprimand on such a basis. I requested a formal hearing at their head office, where Elliot Hammer, an employment law specialist at Branch Austin McCormick, provided me with a defence statement.

On 18th September 2024, I attended the formal hearing at The Trust’s HQ, where I presented a strong defence. My union rep from Workers of England highlighted key inconsistencies. It became clear there was no legitimate basis for the Trust’s initial actions, aside from their disapproval of my video, which had gained significant traction—100,000 views in its first 24 hours on X. The Rossendale and Darwen team had run an effective campaign, and it seemed the Trust panicked at the video’s popularity. They demanded its removal without properly considering the democratic process or their own policies, including NHS pre-election guidelines, meant to prevent interference with elections.

When I questioned a witness, who had ordered me to take the video down in June, whether any specific policy breaches were clear at the time, they admitted, "We knew you were in breach of something." HR was present, and as the hearing drew to a close, they lifted the defence statement, which systematically debunked all allegations. The case was dropped, and I was left with "No case to answer."

This experience raises broader concerns. How many nursing staff and employees accept warnings simply because they lack access to top legal representation? I was fortunate to use my platform as a parliamentary candidate to defend myself, but I shouldn't have had to do so. Employees should not feel forced to accept unjust warnings for fear of losing their jobs.

We are currently awaiting the Trust's response to the Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) to ensure transparency in their initial decision to demand the removal of the video. I have also filed a formal grievance and I intend to escalate the matter to an employment tribunal if necessary.

Though I may not have been elected, yet ;-) I will always stand up against injustice. Reform UK needs more candidates for local elections and beyond. I intend to set a precedent so that large institutions cannot unjustly reprimand employees who bravely represent their communities for any legimate party. These individuals must be protected, and any concerns should be thoroughly scrutinised before taking action.

The Trust has determined that I have no case to answer. This is only verbal and I have not received this in writing as of yet. They acknowledged their social media policy is vague and that I did not breach any policies. My solicitor, Elliot, provided a detailed defense that dismantled all the unsupported allegations. My union rep also confirmed their claims did not hold up, as the alleged breaches were vague and unsubstantiated.

While this is a small win, the damage is already done. The hostility and demands I faced were unsupportive, and the democratic process was disrupted when I had to take down my campaign video, losing momentum. They even insinuated unprofessional behavior and potential racism, baseless charges that should have been dismissed outright.

I now face thousands in legal fees having defended myself. I believe that without legal representation, I would have faced reprimand. With your support, I aim to continue seeking justice, recover legal costs, and set a legal precedent ensuring no organisation, especially our NHS,  can use unfounded policy breaches to threaten employees for standing as a candidate for any legitimate political party whether they like them or not.