Abusive emails and swearing at judge: tribunal strikes out discrimination claims
A former employee who sent abusive emails to the tribunal and swore at the employment judge has had his discrimination claims struck out for unreasonable conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr Fresh was employed by the respondent for less than two years.
- Mr Fresh sent abusive emails to the tribunal and the employment judge.
- Mr Fresh failed to attend the hearing on time and swore at the judge.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of qualifying service.
- The discrimination claims were struck out due to unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Claim form delivered
Mr Fresh delivered a claim form to the Bristol office of the employment tribunals, raising complaints of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
-
Respondent entered response
The respondent filed a response to the claim.
-
Strike out warning for unfair dismissal
The tribunal sent Mr Fresh a warning that his unfair dismissal claim might be struck out due to insufficient service.
-
Abusive email sent
Mr Fresh responded to the strike out warning with an abusive email directed at the Employment Judge.
-
Unfair dismissal struck out; further abuse
Employment Judge Midgley struck out the unfair dismissal claim. Mr Fresh sent another abusive email the same day.
-
Warning for abusive conduct
The tribunal sent Mr Fresh a warning that his claims could be struck out for abusive conduct, giving him 7 days to respond.
-
Immediate abusive reply
Mr Fresh replied within 3 minutes with another abusive email.
-
Preliminary hearing
A public preliminary hearing was held by telephone. Mr Fresh attended late, denied receiving the warning, and swore at the judge before disconnecting.
-
Discrimination claims struck out
Employment Judge A Matthews struck out the discrimination claims due to unreasonable conduct.
The legal issue
Whether the tribunal should strike out discrimination claims because the claimant acted unreasonably by sending abusive emails to the tribunal and the judge, and by swearing at the judge during a hearing.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all of the former employee's claims.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out first because the employee had less than two years' service, which is required by law.
- The discrimination claims were struck out later because the employee's conduct was unreasonable and abusive: he sent abusive emails to the tribunal and the judge, and during a telephone hearing he swore at the judge and hung up.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out before any hearing on the merits.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have less than two years' service, you generally cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless the reason is automatically unfair.
- Abusive or unreasonable conduct towards the tribunal can result in your entire claim being struck out, even if it has merit.
- Responding to tribunal warnings with abusive emails is likely to be seen as unreasonable conduct and can lead to strike-out.
- If you have a disability like dyslexia, tell the tribunal early so they can make adjustments to help you participate.
This case shows how seriously employment tribunals take abusive conduct. The former employee sent a series of abusive emails to the tribunal and the judge, and during a telephone hearing he swore at the judge and disconnected the call. The tribunal struck out his discrimination claims as a result, before they were ever considered on their merits.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal first struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the employee had less than two years' service. Under UK law, most employees need two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The discrimination claims were then struck out under rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules, which allows the tribunal to strike out a claim if the claimant has conducted the proceedings in an unreasonable way.
What the losing side could have done differently
The tribunal gave the employee several warnings and opportunities to explain why his claims should not be struck out. Instead, he continued to send abusive emails. Even at the hearing, when the judge asked about his dyslexia and offered adjustments, the employee responded with abuse. If he had engaged with the process and avoided abusive language, his discrimination claims would have been heard on their merits.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect parties to behave reasonably. Abusive conduct, especially after warnings, can lead to the loss of a claim regardless of its underlying strength. It also highlights the importance of the two-year service requirement for unfair dismissal. Employees with less than two years' service should check whether they have an automatically unfair reason or a discrimination claim before bringing a case.
Similar cases
Employer's failure to comply with tribunal orders leads to strike out and £15,000 award
A local authority employee was awarded £15,483 after her employer's response was struck out for failing to comply with case management orders, leaving the tribunal unable to hold a fair hearing.
Claims struck out after claimant and representative fail to attend hearing
A former employee's race and sex discrimination claims were struck out after she and her representative failed to attend a preliminary hearing without explanation. A later bid to reinstate the case was refused.
36-year employee dismissed on redundancy: tribunal allows discrimination claims to proceed
A tribunal has allowed age and sex discrimination claims to proceed against a car sales company, while striking out an unfair dismissal claim because the claimant was not employed by the respondent at the time of dismissal.
Short-service employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out; discrimination claims survive with deposit order
A former employee of Shaw Trust had his unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out because he had less than two years' service. His race and sex discrimination claims were partially struck out and partially subject to a £5 deposit order.