In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Mr Bye brought claims of disability discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, and unfair dismissal against Amey Services Limited. At the preliminary hearing on 5 and 6 October 2023, Employment Judge Tynan did not decide the merits. For strike-out purposes, the tribunal proceeded on the basis that Mr Bye was disabled by ADHD, bipolar disorder, anxiety and depression, while noting that the final hearing would otherwise have had to determine the pleaded Equality Act issues and the extent of any disability-related effects.

The tribunal found that after the case management hearing on 1 March 2023, Mr Bye sent emails to former colleagues including Kevin Coulthard, Paul Birch and Michael Burgess in terms the tribunal regarded as threatening and intimidating. It accepted that the emails were perceived in that way, including the message to Mr Coulthard saying, "Now it's your turn", and the later message saying, "I’m coming for you all". It also found that Mr Bye had written earlier emails in similarly inappropriate terms, and that his conduct in the proceedings was disruptive, including repeated interruptions, overbearing questioning, and the making of serious allegations of bias and professional misconduct against the respondent's counsel and solicitor.

A further finding concerned Mr Bye's conduct outside the hearing room on 5 October 2023, when he called Mr Coulthard a liar while Mr Coulthard was still giving evidence under oath. The tribunal rejected Mr Bye's attempt to characterise that as part of legal due process. It also found that his later qualifications and partial retractions of the allegations against counsel did not resolve the problem, because he continued to make serious accusations without a proper factual basis.

Applying Rule 37(1)(b), and after considering whether lesser steps such as remote evidence, limits on cross-examination, a deposit order, or further adjustment could secure a fair hearing, the tribunal concluded that the proceedings had been conducted scandalously, unreasonably and vexatiously and that a fair trial was no longer possible. It struck out the claim on that basis. The tribunal did not accept that the claim itself was scandalous or vexatious under Rule 37(1)(a), noting that the underlying claims were arguable, but it held that Mr Bye's conduct of the proceedings made continuation unfair and disproportionate.