R Sorrell Mr R Brown v The Chief Constable st and 1 other — 2017

The claimant presented a complaint alleging detriment on the grounds of making protected disclosures, lodged on 19 October 2014. The case was sisted between 2015 and 2016 and then returned to a series of preliminary hearings at which the claimant was required to particularise the disclosures, the detriments said to follow, and the causal link between them. The respondent applied to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(b) and Rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, arguing that the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner and that the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had not complied with the order made on 4 October 2016 requiring him to explain why he believed each alleged detriment was linked to each disclosure. However, it concluded that strike out would be disproportionate. The tribunal noted that the claimant had largely provided the further information sought at earlier preliminary hearings, that the proceedings were still at a relatively early stage, and that the respondent had not shown that a fair hearing was no longer possible or that it had suffered material unfairness or prejudice from the delay.

On the contention that the claimant's conduct was scandalous, vexatious or unreasonable, the tribunal was not persuaded that he had deliberately or persistently disregarded procedural steps or acted for an improper motive. It considered that the shifting descriptions of the alleged disclosures were mainly a product of the claimant's self-representation and the technical complexity of the case, rather than harassment or abuse of process. The tribunal instead made an unless order requiring the claimant within 28 days to identify each alleged disclosure, the date, recipient, content, document or transcript reference, the detriment relied on, when it occurred, who took it, and why he said it was connected to the disclosure; the respondent was then to reply within 14 days. The judgment states that failure to comply would result in dismissal without further order.