Case 2203727/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Stubbs v Consensio Holidays Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203727/2021
- Decision date
- 22 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Stubbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 November 2021 Regional Employment Judge Wade struck out the claimant’s claims against Consensio Holidays Ltd. The tribunal recorded two grounds for strike out: the claims had no reasonable prospect of success because they were filed considerably out of time, and the proceedings had been conducted in a manner that was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious.
The tribunal noted that a Rule 37 warning had been sent on 4 November 2021. That warning said the claim appeared to be very late, because the employment ended in February 2014 and the claim was not filed until February 2021, and it referred to abusive emails and an incident at the tribunal’s reception on 2 November 2021, when the claimant shouted and was abusive towards tribunal staff. A further letter on 10 November 2021 gave the claimant until 19 November 2021 to respond directly to the warning or request a hearing.
The judge found that the claimant’s later emails did not answer the strike-out warning and were mostly abusive. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant was very distressed and referred to ill health, it decided that listing a further preliminary hearing would not be fair to the respondent given how late the claim was. The judge also said it was not fair on tribunal staff to tolerate the abusive email traffic, noted concern about staff safety arising from the reception incident, and recorded that the claimant had not expressed regret and was not prepared to engage with the tribunal process.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing category; the extracted judgment text itself refers only to 'the claims' and does not identify the individual causes of action. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing category; the extracted judgment text itself refers only to 'the claims' and does not identify the individual causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37
- Rule 61
- no reasonable prospect of success
- scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious
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.