Claimant v Respondent — 2019

The claimant brought proceedings arising from events on 1 March 2018, when she said she was the only person not paid while the office was closed due to snow, and from a discussion on 19 March 2018 with Mr R in which she said he mentioned a January 2018 rape. At the preliminary hearing the complaints were identified as unfair constructive dismissal, part-time workers detriment, dependants' leave detriment, and harassment related to sex or direct sex discrimination.

The case was adjourned from the November 2018 hearing after problems with the bundle and compliance with case management directions. After the February 2019 hearing the claimant sent multiple emails to the Tribunal raising disclosure requests and making allegations of perjury, tampering with evidence, and other matters. The Tribunal said the earlier delays and attempts to reopen issues were unreasonable, but they would not on their own justify strike-out.

The decisive event was the claimant's emails of 12 May 2019, sent immediately before the hearing resumed, alleging that the respondent and its witnesses had conspired to murder Mr A using hitmen. Applying Rule 37(1)(b), and referring to Bennett, Blockbuster, Bolch and Chidzoy, the Tribunal held that this conduct was scandalous and unreasonable. It found that the claimant genuinely believed what she was saying, but that her belief was not grounded in reality and that she was under a delusion.

The Tribunal concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible. Credibility on the 19 March 2018 conversation was central, the allegation of a murder conspiracy could not simply be ignored, and the respondent's witnesses could not fairly be expected to give evidence in the face of those accusations. The Tribunal found that no lesser case management order or costs order would cure the problem, so the claim in its entirety was struck out.

The respondent then applied for costs, but the Tribunal refused the application. It accepted the claimant's evidence about her limited means, found that she had not acted in bad faith, and said the case itself had been reasonably brought. No monetary award was made.