Mr A Kuznetsov v And and 2 others — 2021

Claim Two was a renewed claim by Mr A Kuznetsov against the same Manulife entities after Claim One had already been dismissed, with appeals and later review applications refused. The tribunal accepted the respondents' analysis that Claim Two was a materially identical duplication of Claim One, including the same allegations that the claimant had been dismissed and detrimented because of alleged protected disclosures.

The claimant relied on two email chains said to be new evidence, a change of name and the absence of any reported "impairment charge", later Supreme Court authorities in Takhar, Gilham and Jhuti, and an argument that he had really been employed by the first respondent. The tribunal held that the first email did not show the respondents knew of or authorised the Camden Council email, the second email chain was not relied on in the current pleadings and was not new, Takhar/Gilham/Jhuti did not reopen issues already decided in Claim One, and the employment-status point had already been rejected in the earlier proceedings.

Applying res judicata, specifically cause of action estoppel, and treating the proceedings as an abuse of process, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case and that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. The current claim was therefore struck out under rule 27 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.