Mr B Hussain v Lacura Care Services Ltd — 2024

This was a public preliminary hearing on 17 January 2025 before Employment Judge Slater. The claimant had been dismissed on 18 April 2024, entered early conciliation between 1 and 3 May 2024, presented his first unfair dismissal claim on 3 May 2024, and later withdrew it on 28 June 2024 because he said he could not afford legal representation. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not reserve the right to bring a further claim when he withdrew the first case. The respondent argued that the later claim was barred by res judicata or should be struck out as an abuse of process.

The tribunal identified the relevant principles under rule 68 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, res judicata and cause of action estoppel, Henderson v Henderson, and rule 38(1)(a) on strike out for vexatiousness. It also noted the effect of withdrawal under the tribunal rules. The tribunal found that the second claim concerned the same essence of complaint as the first, namely ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, and that the claimant had said there was no intention to pursue whistleblowing or disability discrimination complaints despite wording on the second claim form.

On the facts, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had plausible reasons for withdrawing the first case, including inability to afford a solicitor, difficulty representing himself, and panic when faced with doing so. It accepted that there had been some administrative delay after the withdrawal and that, once the claimant understood the position, he and Ms Parvez took prompt steps to pursue a new claim. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant had manipulated the process by waiting to see the respondent's response before reissuing proceedings, and it found that the second claim had been presented within time.

The tribunal concluded that it would not have been an abuse of process for the claimant to pursue the second claim if there had been no dismissal-on-withdrawal judgment, and that it was in the interests of justice to revoke that judgment. The refusal to strike out the second claim meant that case 2403748/24 could continue. No merits finding or monetary award was made in this judgment.