J Hendry (sitting alone) A v Respondent — 2019

On 14 November 2018 the tribunal heard the respondents' application to strike out the claimant's claims. The claimant had brought proceedings in December 2016 alleging unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of sex and religious belief after her dismissal on 17 August 2016. This judgment did not determine the merits of those claims; it dealt only with whether the proceedings should be struck out under Rule 37.

Applying Rule 37 and the authorities referred to in argument, including Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, Bennett v Southwark LBC and Anyanwu v South Bank Student's Union, Employment Judge Hendry found that the claimant's email correspondence to SS, Mr Gunn and others contained scandalous, vexatious and unreasonable material. The tribunal accepted that the correspondence had upset SS and had been wearisome and upsetting for Mr Gunn, and it recorded that SS was reluctant to remain involved in the proceedings.

The tribunal nevertheless concluded that it was not yet satisfied that a fair hearing was impossible. It noted that SS was not an essential witness, that there was no evidence that other witnesses or decision-makers had been influenced, and that the claimant's conduct, while serious, had not yet made a fair trial impossible. The application to strike out was therefore refused.

The tribunal also recorded contextual matters about the claimant's position, including that she was Indian, Hindu and had found the exposure of intimate details about her relationship with Dr X distressing and humiliating. The judge treated those matters as part of the background, but not as justification for the language used in correspondence. Instead of strike out, the tribunal made case-management orders requiring the claimant to desist from repeating the allegations except where necessary and relevant to the claims, to correspond professionally and politely with the respondents' representative, and not to contact witnesses without the tribunal's sanction.