By RASHAD ROLLE
Tribune News Editor
rrolle@tribunemedia.net
THE Public Hospitals Authority has failed to overturn a default judgment entered against it in a lawsuit brought by a former Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre nurse who claims she became ill after exposure to toxic fumes, was denied suitable accommodation and was effectively dismissed after her salary was stopped.
Assistant Registrar Akeria Martin dismissed the PHA’s application to set aside the judgment, finding that its explanation for failing to defend the case was inadequate and that its proposed defence did not present a sufficiently arguable case.
The ruling leaves the October 8, 2025 default judgment intact and clears the way for the court to assess how much Khaula Reid should receive if her claims for damages are proved. Ms Reid is seeking more than $364,000, including compensation for alleged wrongful and unfair dismissal, lost allowances, pension, gratuity and legal costs, along with interest.
The court awarded Ms Reid costs arising from the failed set-aside application and directed her to file a statement of costs within six weeks. A directions hearing will be scheduled to advance the assessment of damages.
Ms Reid’s action accuses the PHA of constructively and wrongfully dismissing her, unfairly terminating her employment and acting oppressively, arbitrarily or unconstitutionally.
She claims she became sick and unable to work after being exposed to toxic fumes at Sandilands in November 2013. According to the ruling, she was later diagnosed with vocal cord dysfunction and multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome.
Ms Reid joined the PHA as a registered nurse in 2007 and later worked at Sandilands. The judgment records that she obtained additional nursing qualifications and a master’s degree in health informatics during her employment.
Her claim says doctors determined that exposure to strong odours and chemicals could trigger breathing difficulties and that she should not work in hospitals. A doctor recommended that she be allowed to work from home.
Ms Reid says she sought remote work or reassignment to a suitable position, but the PHA rejected those options. She claims the authority stopped her salary on May 1, 2021, after she failed to submit a medical certificate by an April 30 deadline.
The PHA argued that Ms Reid was medically boarded in accordance with its policies, the relevant industrial agreement and the Pensions Act and was not constructively or unfairly dismissed.
Its proposed defence said the decision arose from a doctor’s medical letter indicating that Ms Reid could not work in or near a hospital environment. The authority also intended to argue that it had no suitable alternative position for her.
However, the court found that the proposed defence did not adequately address whether the PHA fulfilled its legal duty to accommodate Ms Reid.
Assistant Registrar Martin said the PHA’s defence did not explain whether it investigated potential accommodation, obtained the necessary information or considered alternatives before medically boarding her.
The ruling said an employer’s accommodation obligations require more than merely investigating whether an existing post might suit a disabled employee. It must determine whether positions can be adjusted, adapted or modified and must make genuine efforts unless accommodation would cause undue hardship.
The court found that the PHA’s proposed defence relied heavily on the doctor’s recommendation that Ms Reid could not work in a hospital or clinic but was silent on whether the authority fulfilled that duty.
The PHA also argued that Ms Reid’s case was filed too late, saying she had been constructively dismissed on April 30, 2021, but did not file her claim until June 10, 2025.
The court rejected that argument at this stage.
Assistant Registrar Martin found that even if the April 2021 date were used, Ms Reid filed her breach-of-contract claim within the six-year limitation period.
The ruling said the PHA filed an acknowledgement of service on June 27, 2025, but failed to file a defence. The notice of assessment was served on December 8, 2025, but the authority did not apply to set aside the judgment until March 27, 2026, three days before a scheduled directions hearing.
The PHA blamed its failure to defend the claim on administrative error and difficulty locating records and consulting relevant stakeholders.
However, the court found that the application was not filed as soon as reasonably practicable and rejected the authority’s explanation.
Assistant Registrar Martin said the administrative-error explanation was not good and had been overused by the PHA.
She also concluded that the authority had not shown a real prospect of successfully defending the action.
“In totality, as pled, the particulars of the intended Defence are not sufficient to persuade me that a full blown trial is warranted by extension to set aside the Default Judgment and cause any further delay to the Claimant by preventing her from receiving the fruits of her labor,” the ruling said.
“Moreover, the Defendant would not lose the benefit of a limitation defence as the Claim was brought within the statutory time period.”
The court dismissed the application and ordered the assessment of Ms Reid’s claim to proceed.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.