Customer service assistant's discrimination claims struck out after abusive conduct
A 14-year Tesco employee who withdrew his unfair dismissal claim and repeatedly abused tribunal staff had his remaining discrimination claims struck out. No compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Customer Service Assistant from 16 October 2004 until 2 February 2019.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
- The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and arrears of pay.
- The claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim at a hearing on 24 September 2020.
- The claimant repeatedly refused to comply with case management orders and made abusive allegations against tribunal staff and the respondent's representatives.
- The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (e) for unreasonable conduct, non-compliance, and impossibility of a fair trial.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Tesco Stores Limited as a Customer Service Assistant.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and arrears of pay.
-
First preliminary hearing
EJ Camp held a closed preliminary hearing and listed an open preliminary hearing to consider amendment, deposit, and strike out issues.
-
Open preliminary hearing
EJ Meichen identified valid claims for failure to provide rest breaks, unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, and religious discrimination. Refused amendment for age discrimination, breach of contract, and victimisation.
-
Open preliminary hearing
EJ Algazy QC listed the case for final hearing. Claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim.
-
Aborted final hearing
Final hearing abandoned as parties were not ready. EJ Meichen conducted case management over four days, refusing amendment applications and listing a further preliminary hearing.
-
Preliminary hearing on amendments and strike out
EJ Gaskell refused the claimant's amendment applications and struck out all claims under Rule 37.
-
Written reasons issued
Employment Judge Gaskell issued written reasons for the strike out decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow late amendments to add automatic unfair dismissal and victimisation claims, and whether to strike out the entire case due to the claimant's conduct and non-compliance with procedural orders.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's applications to amend his claim and struck out all remaining claims under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant had repeatedly refused to comply with case management orders.
- He made abusive allegations against tribunal staff and the respondent's representatives.
- His conduct made it impossible to conduct a fair trial.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out before any substantive hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Tribunals expect parties to comply with case management orders and treat staff and opponents with respect – failure to do so can result in strike out.
- Withdrawing a claim (like unfair dismissal) does not automatically protect other claims if conduct remains problematic.
- Making abusive allegations against tribunal staff is a serious matter that can lead to the entire case being thrown out.
- If you want to amend your claim, do it promptly – late applications are likely to be refused, especially if they cause delay.
When conduct derails a case
This case shows how a claimant's own behaviour can destroy their chance of a tribunal hearing, regardless of the merits of their original complaints. The customer service assistant, who had worked for Tesco for 14 years, was dismissed for gross misconduct in 2019. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and arrears of pay. But the case never reached a final hearing.
A pattern of non-compliance
From the outset, the claimant failed to follow tribunal directions. He withdrew his unfair dismissal claim in September 2020, but the discrimination claims continued. Over the next two years, he repeatedly refused to comply with case management orders, made abusive allegations against tribunal staff and the respondent's legal team, and applied very late to add new claims of automatic unfair dismissal and victimisation.
The tribunal's response
Employment Judge Gaskell refused the amendment applications, noting they were made far too late and without good reason. More significantly, the judge struck out the entire claim under Rule 37, which allows a tribunal to strike out a case where a party has acted unreasonably, failed to comply with orders, or where a fair trial is no longer possible. The judge concluded that the claimant's conduct – including abusive emails and allegations of bias against tribunal staff – had made it impossible to hold a fair hearing.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a stark reminder that tribunals expect all parties to behave reasonably and follow procedural rules. Even a potentially strong discrimination claim can be lost if the claimant refuses to cooperate or abuses the process. For anyone bringing a claim, it is essential to comply with orders, treat all parties with respect, and make any amendment applications as early as possible.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
Bus driver dismissed for refusing alcohol test after collision: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 6 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing a breath alcohol test following an at-fault collision. The tribunal also dismissed his discrimination and victimisation claims.
Discrimination claims struck out after failure to provide clear particulars
A former employee's race and religion discrimination claims were struck out after she failed to provide a properly constructed amendment despite a tribunal order. Her solicitor's last-minute postponement request was refused.
Sales consultant's claims struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A sales consultant who refused to participate in the final hearing and repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders had his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out. Costs orders totalling £5,548 were made against him.