In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Mr Ezeh presented claims of unfair dismissal and race and disability discrimination. At the open preliminary hearing on 18 September 2020, the tribunal did not hear the merits. It considered the respondent's application to strike out the claims under Rule 37(1)(b) after a letter dated 18 October 2019 was said to contain threats directed at the respondent and witnesses, including Mr Theodosiou and Ms Mihell.

The judge applied the three-limb test in Bolch v Chipman. He found that the letter was sent in the course of the proceedings, that the claimant must have known or ought to have known that it would be seen by the respondent's witnesses, and that its wording was genuinely and intentionally intimidating. The tribunal held that the language was more likely than not to be perceived as intimidating by a reasonable person and that intimidation of witnesses could affect the integrity of their evidence, so a fair trial was no longer possible.

The claimant's explanation that the wording was metaphorical or merely 'flowery language' was rejected. The judge also relied on the claimant's later correspondence to the tribunal, which used similarly hostile language and reinforced the conclusion that the claimant remained belligerent and that the respondent's witnesses were likely to feel threatened. The tribunal found there was no proportionate alternative to strike out and ordered that the claim be struck out under Rule 37(1)(b).

After the strike-out decision, the respondent applied for costs limited to a brief fee of £1,250 plus VAT. The tribunal accepted that the threshold for considering costs under Rule 76(1)(a) was met, and it took into account the claimant's evidence about limited means, including asserted income of about £2,000 from two jobs and rent of £1,100 per month. The judge nevertheless declined to make a costs order, noting that the respondent had been spared the expense of the final merits hearing.