Job applicant's claim struck out after baseless allegations against employer
An employment tribunal struck out a claim after the claimant accused the respondent of orchestrating her eviction, finding the allegations scandalous and vexatious.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #vexatious-conduct
- #scandalous-allegations
- #no-witness-statement
- #fair-trial-impossible
Key facts
- The claimant was either employed or in negotiations for employment with the respondent in December 2021 and January 2022.
- The claimant failed to provide a witness statement despite multiple deadlines.
- The claimant made a strike-out application accusing the respondent of malicious interference, including orchestrating her eviction.
- The tribunal found the claimant's allegations to be baseless and without proper foundation.
- The claimant's conduct was deemed unreasonable, scandalous, and vexatious, making a fair trial impossible.
Timeline
-
Claimant's employment/negotiations period begins
The claimant was either employed by or in negotiations with the respondent.
-
Claimant's dismissal or end of negotiations
The claimant's dismissal (if it was a dismissal) occurred in January 2022.
-
Respondent's strike-out application
The respondent applied to strike out the claim or for an unless order due to the claimant's failure to provide a witness statement.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Anstis
The claimant raised allegations of bullying by the respondent, which the judge found unsubstantiated.
-
Claimant's eviction
The claimant was evicted from her home, which she later alleged was orchestrated by the respondent.
-
Email exchange regarding bundle
The claimant and respondent exchanged emails about documents to be included in the hearing bundle.
-
Deadline for witness statements
Neither party provided witness statements by this date.
-
Respondent provides witness statements
The respondent provided its witness statements, one month late.
-
Final hearing and strike-out applications
The tribunal heard both parties' strike-out applications. The claimant submitted a lengthy application accusing the respondent of misconduct.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claim due to her unreasonable, scandalous, and vexatious conduct.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's conduct was so unreasonable, scandalous, or vexatious that the claim should be struck out and a fair trial was no longer possible.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claim in its entirety.
- The claimant failed to provide a witness statement despite multiple deadlines.
- She made a strike-out application accusing the respondent of malicious interference, including orchestrating her eviction, which the tribunal found baseless.
- The tribunal concluded that her conduct was unreasonable, scandalous, and vexatious, making a fair trial impossible.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders, such as providing a witness statement, can lead to your claim being struck out.
- Making serious allegations without evidence, especially against the other party, risks being seen as scandalous or vexatious.
- If you are a litigant in person, seek advice early to avoid procedural pitfalls that can derail your case.
- Tribunals will consider whether a fair trial is still possible; if your conduct prevents it, your claim may be dismissed.
This case shows how a claim can be derailed not by its merits but by the conduct of the claimant. The individual, who disputed whether she was an employee or job applicant, alleged whistleblowing detriment and discrimination against General Mills UK Limited. However, the tribunal never reached the substance of those claims.
Instead, the case collapsed under the weight of procedural failures and escalating accusations. The claimant failed to provide a witness statement by multiple deadlines, and on the first day of the final hearing, she submitted a lengthy application accusing the respondent of orchestrating her eviction and other malicious acts. The tribunal found these allegations to be baseless and without proper foundation.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have complied with the tribunal's orders for a witness statement, which would have allowed the case to proceed. Making serious allegations without evidence, particularly against the other party, was a high-risk strategy that backfired. The tribunal noted that both parties agreed a fair trial was no longer possible, but it was the claimant's conduct that led to the strike-out.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect parties to conduct litigation reasonably. Unreasonable, scandalous, or vexatious conduct can result in a claim being struck out, regardless of its underlying strength. For litigants in person, it highlights the importance of following procedural rules and avoiding personal attacks on the other side.
Similar cases
Claims struck out after employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's claims for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and age discrimination have been struck out after repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders and participate in hearings.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Whistleblowing claim struck out after claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders
A head of workforce development who resigned alleging constructive dismissal and whistleblowing had her claims struck out after she repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders and stopped engaging with the tribunal.
Costs of £4,490 for bringing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success
A former employee who brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and holiday pay arrears has been ordered to pay £4,490 in costs after failing to attend hearings and ignoring a Calderbank offer.