Case 2303378/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 2303378/2018
- Decision date
- 29 January 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on 15 March 2022 before Employment Judge Truscott QC. The respondent applied under Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) to strike out the claimant's disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation and section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999 claims. The tribunal struck out the claim and discharged the final hearing listed for 31 July to 8 August 2023.
The tribunal accepted Mr Gooder's evidence about the history of disclosure and case management. It found that the claimant became preoccupied with allegations that her Outlook emails had been hacked, that the bundle had been tampered with, and that the respondent and its solicitors were involved. The tribunal recorded that the respondent repeatedly explained that the documents complained of had been received from the claimant or her representative, or were embedded in an investigation report, and that the police investigation ended after those explanations were provided.
Applying Rule 37 and the authorities it cited, including Blockbuster, Bennett, Attorney General v Barker, Bolch, Arriva London North v Maseya, Baber and De Keyser, the tribunal held that the claimant's conduct was vexatious and unreasonable, but not scandalous. It said she refused to accept straightforward explanations, made no serious attempt to progress the substantive issues, and instead repeated unparticularised allegations to the tribunal, the Police and the SRA. The tribunal also found that the proceedings had consumed significant case-management time and caused considerable cost to a public body.
The tribunal concluded that a fair trial was not possible because the claimant would not confine herself to relevant issues and would continue to pursue the hacking allegations in a way that would derail the merits hearing. It held that strike out was a proportionate response even though preparations for the final hearing were substantially in place. No monetary award was made because the claim was struck out at the preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability. The judgment struck out the whole case under Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) rather than determining this head on the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. The judgment struck out the whole case under Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) rather than determining this head on the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment linked to disability. The judgment struck out the whole case under Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) rather than determining this head on the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation linked to disability. The judgment struck out the whole case under Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) rather than determining this head on the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Other | The ET1 also alleged a breach of section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The extracted judgment gives no further particulars of that head and struck it out with the rest of the proceedings. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) ET Rules
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James cardinal conditions
- Bennett v London Borough of Southwark meaning of scandalous
- Attorney General v Barker definition of vexatious
- Bolch v Chipman four matters
- Arriva London North Ltd v Maseya
- Baber v Royal Bank of Scotland plc
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson fair trial point
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.