Mr Qiufeng Hu v Recroot Ltd and 1 other — 2022

On 7 July 2022 Employment Judge Adkinson, sitting alone with a Mandarin interpreter, heard the respondents’ applications to strike out Mr Hu’s claims. The judgment amended the respondents’ names and recorded that Mr Hu’s written material remained unclear, but the judge accepted that the hearing was fair and reserved judgment. In a later addendum he rejected a complaint that his earlier case-management involvement created bias, applying the fair-minded and informed observer approach drawn from Porter v Magill, Locabail and In re AZ.

Applying the strike-out authorities cited in the judgment, including Bennett, Blockbuster, De Keyser, Bloch and Weir Valves, the judge refused to strike out the allegation of scandalous conduct based on Mr Hu’s remark that counsel was lying. He held that the outburst was a one-off, did not make a fair trial impossible, and was not significant enough in the wider context to justify strike out. He also refused to strike out the claim against Recroot on the basis that Mr Hu was not an employee, treating employment status as a factual issue that required evidence.

The judge struck out the claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 2018 for lack of Tribunal jurisdiction. He also struck out the redundancy payment claim and the procedurally unfair dismissal claim because Mr Hu had not met the two-year qualifying period in Employment Rights Act 1996 ss.108 and 155. As to the remaining discrimination claims based on age, race, religion or belief and disability, together with the whistleblowing claim, he refused strike out for non-compliance with an earlier order, construing that order narrowly and finding that Mr Hu had materially complied even though the documents he provided did not advance the case in a useful form.