Former employee's multiple claims largely struck out as abuse of process
A tribunal struck out most of a former employee's claims, including a pregnancy discrimination claim from a man, after finding the claims were misconceived, lacked reasonable prospects, or were an abuse of process. Only unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims against the employer survive.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #race-discrimination
- #pregnancy-maternity-misconceived
- #religious-belief-discrimination
- #issue-estoppel
- #abuse-of-process
- #no-reasonable-prospects
Key facts
- The claimant issued three claim forms against Swale Heating Limited and John Roche.
- The claimant did not obtain a valid ACAS certificate against John Roche before issuing the first claim.
- The claimant's pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim was struck out as he is not a woman and was never pregnant.
- The claimant could not provide a factual basis for his claims of victimisation or unauthorised deductions.
- The third claim was struck out as an abuse of process because it duplicated earlier claims with only a new religious belief claim.
Timeline
-
Alleged racist remark
A colleague, Mr Murphy, allegedly made a remark about dreadlocks.
-
Written warning
The claimant received a written warning.
-
Final written warning
The claimant received a final written warning.
-
Resignation
The claimant resigned, stating he was forced to resign.
-
First claim issued
The claimant issued claim number 2301428/2021 against Swale Heating and John Roche.
-
Second claim issued
The claimant issued claim number 2301906/2021 against John Roche.
-
Third claim issued
The claimant issued claim number 2301981/2021 against Swale Heating and John Roche.
-
Preliminary hearing
The hearing considered the respondents' applications to strike out claims.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Shore struck out most claims, leaving only unfair dismissal and race discrimination against Swale Heating.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out multiple claims brought by the claimant against his former employer and a colleague, on grounds including lack of valid ACAS certificates, issue estoppel, abuse of process, and no reasonable prospects of success.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out most of the claimant's claims, leaving only unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination against the employer, Swale Heating Limited.
- The pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim was struck out as 'misconceived' because the claimant is not a woman and was never pregnant.
- The claims against the second respondent (John Roche) were struck out because the claimant did not obtain a valid ACAS certificate before issuing the first claim, leading to issue estoppel.
- The third claim was struck out as an abuse of process because it duplicated earlier claims, and the only new claim (religious belief discrimination) was refused as it could have been brought earlier.
- The claim for unauthorised deductions was struck out as having no reasonable prospects because the claimant could not explain the basis.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always obtain a valid ACAS Early Conciliation certificate against each respondent before issuing a claim, or the claim may be void.
- Do not bring multiple claims that duplicate earlier ones; the tribunal may strike them out as an abuse of process.
- Ensure your claim has a factual basis – if you cannot explain it, it is likely to be struck out as having no reasonable prospects.
- A claim for pregnancy/maternity discrimination can only be brought by a woman who was pregnant or on maternity leave; a man cannot bring such a claim.
- If you want to add a new claim, do so as early as possible; delay without good reason may lead to refusal.
This case shows what can happen when a claimant brings multiple, overlapping claims without proper legal advice. The former employee issued three separate claim forms against his employer and a colleague, alleging unfair dismissal, race discrimination, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, and more. However, the tribunal found that many of these claims were fundamentally flawed.
Why the claims failed
The pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim was struck out as 'misconceived' because the claimant is a man and was never pregnant. The tribunal noted that such a claim simply cannot be brought by someone who is not a woman. Similarly, claims against the colleague, John Roche, were struck out because the claimant had not obtained a valid ACAS certificate against him before issuing the first claim. The tribunal applied 'issue estoppel', meaning the claimant could not relitigate matters already decided.
The third claim was struck out as an abuse of process. It largely duplicated the earlier claims, and the only new element – a religious belief discrimination claim – was refused because the claimant could have included it in his first claim but did not. The tribunal found that allowing it would prejudice the respondents more than refusing it would prejudice the claimant.
What the employer did right
Swale Heating Limited, represented by counsel, successfully argued that many claims were without merit. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's claims for unauthorised deductions had no reasonable prospects because he could not explain their basis. The employer also benefited from the claimant's procedural errors, such as failing to obtain the correct ACAS certificates.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a cautionary tale for claimants who bring multiple claims without legal representation. It highlights the importance of getting the procedural steps right, including ACAS conciliation, and ensuring each claim has a clear factual basis. For employers, it shows that robustly challenging flawed claims at an early stage can save time and costs. The remaining claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination will proceed to a full hearing, but the claimant's case has been significantly narrowed.
Similar cases
Race discrimination claim dismissed after social worker missed time limit
An experienced social worker's race discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Devon County Council were dismissed because she presented her claim too late, and the tribunal refused to extend time.
Sonographer forced to clean and threatened with deportation: race discrimination upheld
A black African sonographer was racially harassed and discriminated against after being required to perform cleaning duties and threatened with deportation. The tribunal awarded £33,611.12.
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.