Beurskens v Livingston Football Club — 2025

This was an interlocutory judgment on the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response under Rule 38. The claimant alleged scandalous or vexatious conduct based on statements in the respondent's solicitors' letters of 6 and 11 March 2024, and also relied on alleged non-compliance with tribunal orders. The underlying proceedings concerned complaints of protected disclosure detriment and ordinary and automatically unfair constructive dismissal, but those claims were not decided in this judgment.

The tribunal applied the well-established strike-out approach, describing strike out as a draconian remedy and citing Bolch v Chipman, Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology, Bennett v Southwark London Borough Council, and Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James. It held that the challenged statements were made in response to tribunal orders requiring the respondent to summarise and comment on related Court of Session proceedings, and that many of the disputed assertions were matters for determination at a full hearing rather than on a strike-out application.

The tribunal considered each of the claimant's complaints about the March 2024 letters, including the asserted reasons for resignation, the Power of Attorney over Opcco6 shares, comments about RW's mental acuity, allegations about online filing codes, and statements said to suggest the claimant was seeking to benefit himself. It concluded that none of the impugned statements amounted to scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct for Rule 38 purposes, and that it was therefore unnecessary to go on to consider whether a fair trial remained possible or whether strike out would be proportionate. The claimant's application to strike out the response was accordingly refused.