Not in attendance, written representations v 1-4, 6-9 & 12: Mrs S Matthews, solicitor 10 & 11: Not in attendance — 2018

The respondents applied under rule 37(1)(b) to strike out Claims 1-7 on the ground that the claimant had conducted the proceedings unreasonably. The judge summarised a history in which the claimant, a Housing Support Worker, had brought successive claims between April 2018 and May 2019, and had pleaded very lengthy, repetitive and difficult-to-follow allegations including sex, race and disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, unfair dismissal, part-time worker detriment and holiday pay issues.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant's conduct of the proceedings was unreasonable. It identified recurring features of the litigation as the excessive length and lack of clarity of the pleadings, the failure to state precisely what each respondent was said to have done and what legal claims followed, the volume of correspondence with the tribunal, repeated challenges to tribunal decisions, and repeated allegations of bias against the tribunal. The claimant's status as a litigant in person and her poor mental health were taken into account, but did not prevent that finding.

Applying rule 37, the overriding objective, Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust and the Blockbuster principles, the judge held that strike-out was not proportionate at that stage. Claims 1 and 2 had already been reduced by earlier case management to a form that could proceed; Claims 3, 4 and 5 had focused annexes identifying the allegations and could still be brought into a coherent and triable form with robust case management; and Claims 6 and 7, although still lengthy, were also capable of similar case management.

The application for strike-out was therefore refused. The tribunal warned that further non-compliance or continued unreasonable conduct could lead to strike-out later, and said it would no longer entertain the type of extensive correspondence previously sent. Separate case management orders were to follow, and no merits or remedy determination was made in this judgment.