Claim struck out after claimant forged contract and switched SD card
A former employee who forged a contract of employment and swapped a blank SD card for evidence has had her unfair dismissal claim struck out for abuse of process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #forgery
- #strike-out
- #sd-card-switch
- #abuse-of-process
- #unreasonable-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant forged a document purporting to be a written contract of employment.
- The claimant pretended to send the forged document to the respondent's solicitors but sent green paper instead.
- The claimant claimed to have found an SD card containing evidence, but it was later found to be blank.
- The claimant swapped the SD card she gave for forensic analysis with a blank one.
- The claimant's conduct made a fair hearing impossible.
Timeline
-
Alleged creation of Disputed Document
The claimant claims a written contract of employment was signed on this date.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the tribunal, not mentioning the Disputed Document.
-
Disputed Document disclosed
The claimant first disclosed the Disputed Document to the respondent's solicitors.
-
Green paper incident
The respondent's solicitors received an envelope from the claimant containing only green paper, not the Disputed Document.
-
Original judgment
The tribunal struck out the claim, finding the claimant forged the Disputed Document.
-
SD card discovered
The claimant claimed to have found an SD card in her mailbox containing evidence.
-
Revocation judgment
The tribunal revoked the strike-out, allowing the claim to proceed based on the SD card evidence.
-
SD card collection
Mr Daly collected an SD card from the claimant for forensic analysis; the claimant later alleged a switch.
-
SD card found blank
CYFOR analysed the SD card and found it to be blank.
-
Final judgment
The tribunal struck out the claim again, finding the claimant had swapped the SD cards and fabricated evidence.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's conduct—forging a key document, sending green paper instead of the forged document, and swapping an SD card for a blank one—made a fair trial impossible, justifying a strike-out.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claim for abuse of process.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant forged a written contract of employment (the 'Disputed Document') and attempted to pass it off as genuine.
- She pretended to send the forged document to the respondent's solicitors but instead sent green paper.
- She claimed to have found an SD card containing evidence, but when handed over for forensic analysis, it was blank; the tribunal found she had swapped the card.
- Her conduct made a fair hearing impossible.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Forging evidence or attempting to deceive the tribunal will almost certainly lead to your claim being struck out.
- If you are found to have fabricated documents, the tribunal may treat your entire case as an abuse of process.
- Switching or tampering with evidence after it has been requested for analysis is a serious breach of tribunal rules.
- Representing yourself does not excuse dishonest conduct; the tribunal expects all parties to act in good faith.
A case undone by dishonesty
This case shows how far a tribunal will go to protect the integrity of its proceedings. The former employee, who was representing herself, claimed unfair dismissal against Thomas Roofing (NW) Ltd. But her claim unravelled when the tribunal found she had forged a key document—a written contract of employment—and then tried to cover her tracks.
What went wrong
The trouble began when the claimant disclosed a document she said was her contract, signed in May 2018. The tribunal concluded it was a forgery. Matters worsened when she claimed to have sent the document to the respondent's solicitors but instead sent an envelope containing only green paper. Later, she said she had found an SD card in her mailbox containing crucial evidence. But when the card was handed over for forensic analysis, it was blank. The tribunal found she had swapped the original card for a blank one.
Why the result matters
The tribunal struck out the claim, not because the underlying dispute lacked merit, but because the claimant's conduct made a fair hearing impossible. Employment tribunals rely on parties acting honestly. When a litigant forges documents and tampers with evidence, the tribunal cannot trust any part of their case. This decision reinforces that even a potentially strong claim can be lost if the claimant is found to have acted dishonestly.
For anyone considering bringing a claim, the lesson is clear: honesty is not just a moral duty—it is a legal requirement. Fabricating evidence or attempting to deceive the tribunal will almost certainly result in your claim being dismissed, regardless of the merits.
Similar cases
Claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust was struck out after he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not respond to correspondence. He was ordered to pay £187.50 in costs.
Claims struck out after housing officer failed to serve witness statement
A former housing officer's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to serve a witness statement, despite extensions and warnings. She was also ordered to pay £3,870 in costs.
Protected disclosure claim struck out: disclosure made after dismissal cannot save unfair dismissal case
A locum lawyer's claim for automatic unfair dismissal over alleged whistleblowing was struck out because the disclosure came months after his engagement ended. He was also ordered to pay £8,000 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
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.