Case 4102964/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102964/2022 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on October 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Michelle Donnelly Build a Rocket Boy Games Limited v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102964/2022
- Decision date
- 31 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gall’s
Parties
1 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102964/2022 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on October 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Michelle Donnelly Build a Rocket Boy Games Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to determine cross-applications for strike out. The tribunal refused the claimant’s application to strike out the respondent’s response, finding no basis for the allegations made against the respondent’s solicitor and concluding that the application was not being pursued because neither the claimant nor her representative attended the hearing.
On the respondent’s application, the tribunal considered Rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and the authorities cited on scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious conduct. It found that the claimant and her representative had acted closely together and had repeatedly used correspondence with the tribunal and the respondent’s solicitor to make serious, unfounded allegations, including allegations of dishonesty, interference with justice, criminal conduct and bias.
The tribunal also found persistent non-compliance with tribunal requirements, including failure to provide information requested in the earlier note, failure to attend preliminary hearings, and repeated attempts by the representative to dictate whether hearings would proceed. It concluded that the claimant and her representative had shown contumelious disregard for the authority of the tribunal and that a fair trial was no longer possible.
The tribunal therefore held that the conduct of the proceedings had been scandalous, and also accepted the respondent’s submissions that it had been unreasonable and vexatious. It struck out the claim in its entirety. As the case was disposed of by strike out, there was no determination on the substantive merits of the pleaded employment claims and no remedy award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records an unfair dismissal complaint at paragraph 1. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(b), so there was no merits determination on this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records a wrongful dismissal complaint at paragraph 1. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(b), so there was no merits determination on this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records disability discrimination at paragraph 1. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(b), so there was no merits determination on this claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a complaint of being unlawfully deprived of holiday pay at paragraph 1. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(b), so there was no merits determination on this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to being unlawfully deprived of 'other payments' in addition to holiday pay. This appears to encompass an unlawful deduction from wages complaint, but the extracted text does not further specify the payment head. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Bennett v Southwark LBC
- Bolch v Chipman
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Marler Ltd v Robertson
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ashmore v British Coal Corporation
- Faron Fariba v Pfizer Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.