In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal heard the respondent's application to strike out the claim and the claimant's application to strike out the response. It noted that the unfair dismissal claim had already been struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service, and the remaining live claims were direct discrimination because of sexual orientation, sexual orientation-related harassment, and unlawful deductions from wages / breach of contract.

On the claimant's application against the response, the tribunal accepted that both sides had missed the original disclosure deadline and that the respondent had been late with some material, including the bundle for the preliminary hearing. It found those failures were not serious enough to make a fair final hearing impossible, and it did not strike out the response. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's attacks on Ms Reece's background and found no evidence that judges had warned her about conduct towards litigants in person or that she had lied to the tribunal.

The tribunal found that the claimant's schedule of loss dated 28 November 2019 was false because it omitted her employment with Bullsmoor Dental Limited from 3 June 2019 to 9 December 2019. It accepted the evidence of Dr Jagani and Professor Shahdad that the Bullsmoor letter was genuine and found that the claimant had falsely accused them of conspiring to mislead the tribunal. It also found that the claimant had created fabricated witness statements from Kostas Smitis and Sanadi Aslan.

The tribunal further found that the claimant's conduct of the litigation was scandalous, vexatious, or at least extremely unreasonable. It relied on repeated abusive correspondence, the refusal to correspond with Ms Reece, repeated copying of the tribunal into inter-party emails, false or exaggerated allegations about Ms Reece and judges, and attempts to deceive the tribunal about disclosure and posting of documents. It considered it highly likely that the discrimination allegations were brought in reaction to disciplinary action, but it declined to strike out under rule 37(1)(a) because discrimination claims are treated cautiously and it could not rule out truth without a trial.

The tribunal ultimately held that the cumulative conduct meant a fair hearing was impossible and that strike out was a proportionate response. It therefore struck out the claimant's claim under rule 37(1)(b). No remedy was awarded because the merits were not determined.