Mr Peter Smith v STV Television Ltd and 3 others — 2026

Mr Peter Smith had brought complaints of automatic unfair dismissal, detriment for making protected disclosures, and disability discrimination. This judgment did not determine those claims on the merits; it dealt only with his applications for the Employment Judge to recuse himself, for strike-out of the respondents' responses, and for a judgment under Rule 22. All three applications were refused.

On recusal, the tribunal held that there was no actual or apparent bias. The complaints relied on earlier case management decisions, comments about the conduct of proceedings, and the judge's reference to the ET3 having been presented timeously on 3 September 2025. The tribunal said that adverse case management decisions, or expressing concerns about how the proceedings were being conducted, did not show bias, and that stating the date of receipt of the ET3 was simply recording a fact.

The tribunal also rejected the argument that the applications required a public hearing under Rule 54(2). It held that the respondents had not sought an oral hearing, had been content for the matter to be determined in writing, and that the listed "hearing in chambers" was not a hearing to which Rule 54(2) applied.

The application to strike out the responses was refused. Applying the Rule 38 strike-out approach and citing HM Prison Service v Dolby, Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd, Anyanwu, and Mechkarov v Citibank NA, the tribunal held that the respondents' grounds of resistance disclosed a statable defence and that there were factual disputes, including time bar, disability status, whether disclosures were qualifying disclosures, and the reasonable adjustments issues. The claimant's documents were not enough, at this stage, to show that the respondents had no reasonable prospect of success.

Finally, the tribunal refused Rule 22 relief because the ET3 had in fact been hand-delivered and date-stamped as received on 3 September 2025. The later processing date of 10 September 2025 did not alter that factual position, so the conditions for a Rule 22 judgment were not met. No substantive liability finding or monetary award was made in this judgment.