In person For the v Respondent — 2019

Mr Patel presented claims of unfair dismissal, detriment for having made a protected disclosure, and direct discrimination on the grounds of disability and religion or belief. An interim relief application had already been dismissed on 5 September 2018. At the strike-out hearing on 8 November 2019, the tribunal focused on Mr Patel's emails of 21 May 2019 alleging a hate crime by Employment Judge Smail and on his refusal to accept the respondents' bundle delivered by special delivery on 18 July 2019.

The tribunal found that the hate-crime allegation was not justified and that Mr Patel had not given a coherent explanation for it. He accepted that he sent the emails, but could not explain the reference to Thames Valley Police or identify any proper basis for alleging a hate crime. The tribunal said that if he wished to challenge the interim relief decision, the proper routes were reconsideration or appeal, not alleging a hate crime against the judge.

The tribunal also found that his refusal to accept the bundle was unreasonable. His explanation that he thought the parcel might be linked to a scam he had recently encountered was described as fanciful. Applying Rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the authorities cited, the tribunal concluded that Mr Patel's conduct during the hearing itself, including his inability to answer questions directly, his application for the judge to recuse himself, his refusal to return after a break, and his statement that he would call the police unless another judge was provided, meant that a fair hearing was no longer possible. The claims were therefore struck out in their entirety and the hearing listed for December 2019 was vacated.