Case 2303345/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303345/2018
- Decision date
- 1 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein RESERVED
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on the respondents' applications to strike out the claimant's claims as having no reasonable prospect of success, being vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process, and being barred by res judicata, issue estoppel and Henderson v Henderson. The tribunal set the case in the context of earlier litigation arising from the claimant's unsuccessful application for a medical laboratory assistant post at Ipswich Hospital in 2016, including earlier strike-out and costs decisions in related proceedings.
As to Public Health England, the claimant alleged destruction of conflict-of-interest forms for the interview process, a failure to investigate his complaint, and that PHE was assisting Ipswich Hospital to discriminate and victimise him. The tribunal said the pleaded case was internally inconsistent because it both alleged destruction of documents and also proceeded on the basis that no such documents existed. It found that the substance of the complaints had already been raised in earlier claims, that there was no explanation for not bringing all relevant parties into those proceedings, and that the events were also out of time with no basis for extending time. It further held that complaints arising from an alleged failure to comply with a data subject access request were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
As to Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the claimant relied on allegations that Mr Smith's ET3 wording mocked him because his first language was not English, and that Mr Smith had threatened costs if the claimant did not abandon the claim. The tribunal held that threats to seek costs are commonplace in litigation, that the use of [sic] in the ET3 was unremarkable, and that there was no evidence from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn. It concluded that the CUH claim was vexatious, an abuse of process, and had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment ends with a declaration that the claims were totally without merit and dismissed. No tribunal award was made in this case.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The PHE allegations concerned destruction of conflict-of-interest forms for the June 2016 interviews, failure to investigate a complaint, and an alleged attempt to assist discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal held the same substance had already been raised in earlier proceedings, found the claims out of time, and treated them as barred by res judicata, issue estoppel and Henderson v Henderson. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Against CUH, the claimant alleged that Mr Smith's ET3 wording mocked him because his first language was not English and complained about threats of costs if he did not abandon proceedings. The tribunal found the costs threat to be commonplace, the use of [sic] unremarkable, and said there was no evidence capable of supporting an inference of race discrimination or shifting the burden of proof. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- res judicata
- issue estoppel
- Henderson v. Henderson
- no reasonable prospect of success
- vexatious and/or an abuse of the process
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.