Case 1601681/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Samuel Weed v Cathays and Central Youth Community Project and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601681/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr Samuel Weed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents applied to strike out the claimant's proceedings on the basis that his conduct had been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, and/or that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The application was heard by Employment Judge S Jenkins in Cardiff on 5 July 2024 and concerned the claimant's repeated allegations about a telephone call with the respondents' solicitor, Mr Damian Phillips, following a conversation on 21 November 2023 and comments said to have been made at a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Harfield on 1 December 2023.
The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the telephone call had taken place and that Mr Phillips' account of the call was supported by his call log and a contemporaneous file note. It accepted that the claimant had effectively accused Mr Phillips of lying about the content of that discussion, and that he repeated similar assertions in later emails. The judge held that this conduct was scandalous and unreasonable in the ordinary sense, and that the allegation was abusive of the other side's representative and irrelevant to the merits of the underlying claims. The judge did not find that the claimant was acting vexatiously or vindictively, noting his visual processing disorder and concluding that he appeared to have become inappropriately focused on perceived wrongdoing.
Applying Rule 37 and the authorities cited, including Bennett, ET Marler, Dyer, De Keyser, Bolch and James, the tribunal then considered whether a fair hearing remained possible. It held that the final tribunal would still be able to assess the claimant's evidence on the underlying workplace allegations, weigh any reliability issues, and reach reasoned findings. The judge also rejected the submission that the claimant's complaints about earlier judicial decisions meant that a fair hearing could not be held. The application to strike out was therefore refused and the substantive claim was allowed to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondents' application under Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure to strike out the claimant's claim was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Bennett v Southwark London Borough Council
- ET Marler Ltd v Robinson
- Dyer v Secretary of State for Employment
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson
- Bolch v Chipman
- James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.