Anonymised Summary of Employment Tribunal Judgment (Case No. 6010960/2024)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff issued a claim on 18 November 2024 alleging disability discrimination arising from an August 2024 job application. The claim named two respondents: Company A (first respondent) and Company B (second respondent). Multiple preliminary hearings and case-management directions followed through 2025–2026.

The Tribunal record shows repeated procedural disputes: voluminous correspondence from the Plaintiff, multiple applications for postponement and recusal, contested disclosure, and directions for medical evidence relating to the Plaintiff's asserted anxiety/depression. The Plaintiff failed to attend several preliminary hearings (28 January 2025, 8 May 2025, 8 September 2025 and 24 April 2026). Company A applied to strike out the claim and for costs; the Tribunal also considered Company A's evidence of the Plaintiff's public posts and social-media activity and the withdrawal of Company A's counsel.

At a public preliminary hearing on 24 April 2026 (heard remotely), Judge James determined the agreed issues and delivered a written judgment striking out the claim and ordering the Plaintiff to pay Company A costs of £20,000.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the Plaintiff has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious.
2. Whether the Plaintiff has failed to comply with Tribunal orders (as to be determined following prior directions of Judge Jeram on 8 May 2025).
3. Company A's application for costs (including costs of the April 2026 hearing).
4. Whether the Plaintiff's non-attendance at listed hearings should be taken into account in determining the strike-out and costs applications.

Arguments of the Parties

Company A's Arguments

• The Plaintiff has engaged in a sustained pattern of avoidance, non-compliance with Tribunal orders, excessive and abusive correspondence, and vexatious litigation conduct warranting strike-out under Rule 38.
• The Plaintiff's public posts and social-media publications (blog and X.com entries) amount to harassment, vilification and misuse of the Tribunal process; specific posts targeted former counsel and Tribunal personnel and risked intimidating witnesses.
• The Plaintiff failed to provide cogent medical evidence causally linking his conduct to his mental-health condition as directed by earlier orders.
• Company A had incurred substantial costs (over £50,000) as a direct result of the Plaintiff's conduct; Company A sought costs, limited to £20,000 to avoid detailed assessment.
• Counsel for Company A withdrew after sustained online attacks directed at her; that withdrawal and witness reluctance (Company A's employee) undermined prospects of a fair trial.

Company B's Arguments

• Company B emphasised unfairness arising from Company A's loss of chosen counsel and the practical difficulty of obtaining replacement counsel given the hostile campaign against counsel.
• Company B highlighted risks to fair disposal if key witnesses are intimidated or if representative capacity is compromised by the Plaintiff's conduct.
• Company B referenced comparable material and the pattern of abusive public content to support the strike-out and costs applications.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff accepted some inappropriate language but attributed much of his conduct to anxiety and depression and sought to frame it within the Equality Act 2010 (sections 15 and 20) and Article 6 ECHR considerations.
• The Plaintiff argued that procedural case-management decisions disadvantaged him as a disabled litigant in person and that reasonable adjustments had not been made.
• The Plaintiff challenged the characterization of posts as harassment, maintained a contextual explanation for correspondence volume, disputed allegations about portal notice, and contested costs on grounds of disability-driven conduct and procedural unfairness.
• The Plaintiff asserted limited means (PIP, Universal Credit, LCW) and said he would provide evidence if requested but had not complied with disclosure orders as directed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Legal framework: Judge James set out Rule 38 (strike-out), the two-stage Dolby test and the Bolch four-factor approach, together with authorities on strike-out caution in discrimination cases but recognising exceptions where conduct is abusive or a fair hearing is impossible.

2. Evidence considered: The Tribunal reviewed hearing bundles, strike-out evidence (including extracted communications and social-media posts), the Plaintiff's witness statements (21 and 24 April 2026), medical letters, procedural history and numerous orders and warnings dating from January 2025 onwards.

3. Findings on conduct: The Tribunal found the Plaintiff's conduct to be unreasonable, scandalous and vexatious. It relied on repeated abusive and insulting emails to Tribunal staff and opponents, sustained public posts targeting former counsel and respondents, purchase of a domain in a former counsel's name, and persistent breach of orders restricting correspondence. The Tribunal concluded the conduct improperly used court process to harass and vilify, consistent with authorities on "scandalous" and "vexatious" conduct.

4. Medical evidence and causation: The Tribunal considered the Plaintiff's medical letters but found them insufficiently cogent to establish a causal link between diagnosed anxiety/depression and the sustained campaign of hostile conduct. The Tribunal noted prior findings in earlier litigation and the Plaintiff's previous denials of a link to his conduct, concluding the medical evidence did not justify continued disruptive conduct.

5. Fair trial and proportionality: Applying the overriding objective, the Tribunal concluded that the Plaintiff's conduct had consumed disproportionate tribunal and respondent resources, had impeded case management, and had materially undermined prospects of a fair trial (including witness reluctance and withdrawal of counsel). Strike-out was assessed as proportionate in all the circumstances after considering alternatives.

6. Costs: Having found unreasonable/vexatious conduct, the Tribunal considered Rule 74/76 principles. The purpose of costs is compensatory; costs must be reasonable and necessary. Although the Plaintiff asserted limited means, he had not provided documentary evidence as ordered. The Tribunal exercised discretion not to take means into account and accepted Company A's capped request of £20,000 as reasonable; it ordered the Plaintiff to pay that sum to Company A.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Tribunal ordered that the Plaintiff's claims be STRUCK OUT on the grounds that his conduct of the proceedings was unreasonable, scandalous and vexatious. The Tribunal also ordered that the Plaintiff pay Company A costs of £20,000.

Consequences: The Plaintiff is denied a hearing on the substantive merits by reason of his procedural conduct. The award of costs is compensatory and below the respondents' total claimed costs; the Tribunal declined to take the Plaintiff's asserted limited means into account in this exercise. The judgment records no new legal precedent; it applies established strike-out and costs principles to the particular factual pattern of persistent abusive conduct, voluminous obstructive correspondence, witness intimidation risk and counsel withdrawal.