Mr W Hampson v Griffin Catering Services Limited — 2026

At the hearing on 8 July 2026, Employment Judge M Da Costa refused Griffin Catering Services Ltd's application to strike out Mr W Hampson's entire case. The judge also refused Mr Hampson's application to add further victimisation allegations and a proposed automatic unfair dismissal claim. The existing claims concerned direct disability, religion and race or nationality discrimination, reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability and race or nationality, and victimisation. Their merits remained undetermined.

The strike-out application arose from social media posts concerning a private preliminary hearing on 28 April 2026. The tribunal found insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities that Mr Hampson had recorded or live streamed the proceedings, or that the image relied on had been taken during the hearing. The image had no time stamp and the respondent supplied no audio evidence. The tribunal did find that Mr Hampson published a contemporaneous running commentary and that this breached the prohibition on transmitting matters said in the hearing.

Applying the strike-out principles discussed in Hargreaves and Bolch, the tribunal found that the respondent had not established that a fair trial was no longer possible. It found that Mr Hampson had used the proceedings as a vehicle for a public campaign against the respondent. However, there was no evidence that witnesses or representatives feared testifying, or that the campaign prevented witnesses from taking part in preparation of the case. References to protests, a petition and a 'die in' did not amount to a clearly articulated threat to witnesses.

The tribunal criticised Mr Hampson's comments about the judge and the respondent's representatives, but found that disclosure had taken place and that lengthy pleadings could be addressed through case management. Under Blockbuster and T v Royal Bank of Scotland, his conduct did not justify the exceptional step of ending the case without a trial. The tribunal also refused strike-out for abuse of process. The judge said that any remedy for contempt lay outside his jurisdiction and that the question of a possible referral to the High Court would be put to senior judges.

The proposed additional victimisation allegations concerned a transfer request, trial shifts and being barred from work while awaiting transfer, with comparisons to other workers, around December 2024. The proposed automatic unfair dismissal claim followed dismissal in June 2025 and was said to concern race, national identity and disability (HIV/AIDS). Mr Hampson alleged that accusations of racism against him had been made in bad faith and were false. Those allegations were not determined in this judgment.

Applying Selkent, the tribunal found that the amendments introduced substantial new factual issues and a new head of claim, rather than relabelling existing facts. It treated the proposed amendments as substantially out of time and found no explanation for failing to bring the allegations earlier. The May 2025 document headed 'continuation of claim' was a narrative rather than a proper amendment application. The factual account supporting the proposed automatic unfair dismissal claim was detailed, but its legal basis had not been set out.