Mr J Reus v Maris Interiors LLP — 2021

At an earlier case management hearing on 17 July 2020, Employment Judge Cheetham QC recorded that the only claim proceeding was unfair dismissal; the claimant had decided not to pursue sexual harassment, and the whistleblowing claim was found not to have an arguable basis and could not proceed. The January 2021 hearing therefore concerned only whether the unfair dismissal claim should be struck out under rule 37(1)(b) because of the claimant's conduct in the proceedings.

Employment Judge Sage accepted the respondent's evidence that the dismissal manager, Mr Smith, had not relied on any alleged HS2 wrongdoing when dismissing the claimant, and that the claimant had not disclosed any specific wrongdoing to the respondent during employment. The tribunal found that the claimant's correspondence focused on trying to pressure the police, the SFO, third parties, and the respondent's employees to investigate alleged fraud and to settle the dispute, rather than on the merits of the unfair dismissal claim itself. The tribunal treated the claimant's August 2020 email and his emails to employees as threatening in tone and as an attempt to obtain evidence to justify his position after dismissal.

The tribunal held that the claimant was using the proceedings to vilify the respondent and to gather material for a whistleblowing case that was not before the tribunal. It also found that his requests for documents about HS2 and other historic matters were irrelevant to the unfair dismissal claim because they were not before the dismissing manager at the time. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant's conduct was scandalous and unreasonable, that a fair hearing was no longer possible, and it struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The February 2021 hearing dates were vacated and no monetary award was made.