no appearance For the v Respondent — 2021

Judge Bartlett refused the respondent's application to strike out the case in its entirety under rule 37(1)(b). He found that the claimant's correspondence over about 18 months was voluminous, repetitive, disproportionate and largely irrelevant, but he was not satisfied that her conduct was deliberate or wilful, noting that she was a litigant in person and there was medical evidence of anxiety and depression. The tribunal held that a fair hearing remained possible, that strike out would be disproportionate, and that the appropriate response was case-management directions limiting future correspondence to necessary matters.

On the whistleblowing issues, the letter dated 12 April 2019 was struck out because the tribunal held that it did not amount to a protected disclosure. The alleged oral disclosure on 1 May 2019 was not struck out, but the tribunal made a £100 deposit order because it considered the claim had little reasonable prospects and the claimant had not clearly identified how the disclosure was a qualifying disclosure or how the public interest requirement was met.

The respondent's strike out and deposit order applications were refused on the victimisation claim and on the race discrimination claims. The tribunal held that the victimisation claim turned on a disputed oral allegation of race discrimination on 1 May 2019 and an alleged dismissal the following day, and that the absence of documentary evidence did not show there were no reasonable prospects. It also refused a deposit order for the race harassment and direct race discrimination claims, treating the underlying facts as disputed and not satisfied that the claims were weak.