Mr I Ashraf and Ms LJ Taylor Mr Paulius Serelis v Quarriers — 2023

The claimant had brought complaints of unfair dismissal and detriment arising from protected disclosures. On 25 November 2022, before the hearing had concluded, the respondent applied under Rule 37(1)(a) to strike out the claim on the basis that it was said to be scandalous or vexatious and/or to have no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal also noted that an application for expenses had been reserved for later determination.

The tribunal set out the Rule 37 two-stage approach and the authorities relied on for strike-out decisions, including the need to be slow to strike out claims brought by a litigant in person and the caution required in discrimination-type cases. It rejected the submission that the claimant's complaints to other bodies made the claim scandalous or vexatious, noting that those bodies had different remits from the tribunal and that the claimant had presented a statable case in his ET1.

The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the claimant's conduct of the proceedings justified strike-out under the rules. It said that the claimant, as a party litigant, could not be held to the same standard as a legal representative, that his former representative had withdrawn shortly before the first hearing date, and that part of the delay was caused by the respondent's own application. It concluded that there was no basis on which it could say that a fair trial was no longer possible.

On prospects of success, the tribunal said the respondent was in effect seeking to obtain a full merits judgment by the back door before all evidence had been heard. Applying the approach that the claimant's case should be taken at its highest, it was not persuaded that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success. The respondent's strike-out application was therefore refused, and no final merits finding or remedy was made in this decision.