Former employee's repeated claims struck out as abuse of process
An employment tribunal struck out a series of claims brought by a former construction labourer against multiple respondents, finding them to be res judicata, an abuse of process, and totally without merit. The claimant was ordered to pay £20,000 in costs and £1,786 in preparation time.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #res-judicata
- #abuse-of-process
- #strike-out
- #costs-order
- #preparation-time-order
- #totally-without-merit
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by a Berkeley Group company from 22 September 2014 to 13 February 2015.
- The claimant had previously brought claims against SEH and related entities which were struck out or dismissed.
- The claimant presented multiple new claims in 2018 and 2019 that largely duplicated earlier claims.
- The tribunal found the 2018 and 2019 claims were res judicata, an abuse of process, or had no reasonable prospects of success.
- The tribunal struck out the 2021 and 2022 claims as totally without merit and covered by judicial proceedings immunity.
- The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £20,000 in costs to SEH and £1,786 in preparation time to NES.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began employment with a Berkeley Group company.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed from his employment.
-
First ET claim presented
The claimant presented his first employment tribunal claim (Case No. 3300013/2016) against SEH and Berkeley Group plc.
-
First claim struck out
Employment Judge Bedeau struck out the 2016 claim as having no reasonable prospects of success.
-
Second ET claim presented
The claimant presented a second claim (Case No. 3300013/2017) which was later struck out as an abuse of process.
-
Additional DSAR disclosure
SEH disclosed additional documents to the claimant in response to a data subject access request.
-
First 2018 PCR claim presented
The claimant presented a claim against PCR and Mr Laing for victimisation.
-
Second 2018 claim presented
The claimant presented a claim against SEH, AKSL, Ms Oldbury-Davies, Mr Edgar, and Mr Michaels.
-
EAT dismisses appeals
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed appeals against the striking out of the 2016 and 2017 claims.
-
Preliminary hearing starts
The open preliminary hearing began to consider strike out and deposit order applications.
-
Preliminary hearing resumes
The hearing continued with the claimant experiencing health issues but expressing willingness to proceed.
-
Reserved judgment on strike out
Employment Judge George issued a reserved judgment striking out most claims and finding unreasonable conduct.
-
Further preliminary hearing
The tribunal struck out the 2021 and 2022 claims as totally without merit and made costs orders.
-
Final judgment issued
The tribunal issued the judgment confirming the strike out and costs orders.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's multiple claims against various respondents should be struck out as res judicata, an abuse of process, or having no reasonable prospects of success, and whether costs or preparation time orders should be made.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the majority of the claimant's claims against St Edward Homes Limited and related respondents, finding that they duplicated earlier claims that had already been dismissed or struck out. The claims were deemed res judicata, an abuse of process, and/or having no reasonable prospects of success.
The tribunal also struck out the 2021 and 2022 claims as totally without merit and covered by judicial proceedings immunity. The claimant was ordered to pay:
- £20,000 in costs to St Edward Homes Limited
- £1,786 in preparation time to Niblock Electrical Services Limited
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have previously brought a claim that was dismissed, you cannot bring the same claim again – it is res judicata.
- Repeatedly bringing similar claims against the same parties can be considered an abuse of process and may lead to strike-out and costs orders.
- Tribunals can order costs against a claimant who acts unreasonably, including pursuing claims with no reasonable prospects of success.
- Claims that are totally without merit may be struck out and can result in financial penalties.
A pattern of repeated claims
This case illustrates the consequences of bringing multiple claims that duplicate earlier ones. The former employee, a construction labourer, was dismissed in 2015 and initially brought a claim that was struck out. Over the next several years, he presented a series of further claims against St Edward Homes Limited and other respondents, largely repeating the same allegations.
The tribunal found that the 2018 and 2019 claims were res judicata – meaning the issues had already been decided – and an abuse of process. Later claims from 2021 and 2022 were struck out as totally without merit and covered by judicial proceedings immunity.
What the respondents did right
St Edward Homes Limited and the other respondents applied early to have the claims struck out, providing clear evidence of the earlier proceedings. The tribunal noted that the claimant had been given multiple opportunities to present his case but continued to bring claims that had no reasonable prospects of success.
Why this matters
This case serves as a warning that employment tribunals will not allow claimants to relitigate decided matters. Pursuing claims that are clearly without merit can lead to strike-out and significant costs orders. The claimant was ordered to pay £20,000 in costs and £1,786 in preparation time, highlighting the financial risks of unreasonable litigation.
Similar cases
Former employee's detriment claim struck out as abuse of process
A former employee's claim for protected disclosure detriment was struck out after the tribunal found the alleged acts were covered by judicial proceedings immunity and the claim was an abuse of process. A costs order of £20,000 was made.
Long-serving employee's fresh claim struck out as abuse of process
A former Ministry of Defence employee with 34 years' service had his second unfair dismissal claim struck out for being substantially the same as a 2015 claim he withdrew, and for paying a deposit late.
Whistleblowing claim struck out: relitigating the same disclosure
A former Transport for London engineer had his whistleblowing detriment claim struck out after trying to relitigate a disclosure already decided by a previous tribunal. He was ordered to pay £2,940 in costs for withdrawing the rest late.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.