Employment tribunal strikes out claims after former employee insists on criminal investigation first
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims against Govia Thameslink Railway were struck out after he repeatedly refused to proceed without a prior criminal investigation by MI5 or the Serious Fraud Office.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #no-reasonable-prospect
- #criminal-investigation
- #misconduct
- #unreasonable-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant alleged criminal wrongdoing by individuals and corporate bodies, including MI5 and the Serious Fraud Office.
- The claimant repeatedly stated that his claims could not proceed without a prior criminal investigation.
- The claimant did not comply with a Tribunal order to state whether he wished to continue his claims.
- The Tribunal found the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out under Rule 37(1)(a).
- The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £2,700 for unreasonable conduct leading to postponement.
Timeline
-
Preliminary hearing (disability status)
Hearing on whether claimant was disabled by depression; found not disabled.
-
Preliminary hearing continued
Further hearing on disability issue; order made for claimant to state whether he wished to continue.
-
Claimant emails about criminal investigation
Claimant emails Tribunal and respondent seeking criminal investigation/prosecution, referencing MI5 and bioterrorism.
-
Strike out warning issued
Tribunal issued warning that claims may be struck out for no reasonable prospect of success.
-
Strike out judgment
Claims struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success.
-
Costs judgment
Claimant ordered to pay £2,700 costs for unreasonable conduct leading to postponement.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the former employee's claims should be struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success, given his repeated assertions that his employment claims could not proceed without a prior criminal investigation by bodies such as MI5 or the Serious Fraud Office.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims against Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd.
The key reason was that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant had repeatedly stated in correspondence that he wanted a criminal investigation by MI5 or the Serious Fraud Office before any employment claim could proceed, and he did not comply with a tribunal order to state clearly whether he wished to continue his employment claims.
Additionally, the claimant was ordered to pay costs of £2,700 for unreasonable conduct that led to a postponement.
Lessons & takeaways
- Tribunals can strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success, especially if the claimant refuses to engage with the tribunal process.
- If you bring an employment claim, you must pursue it in the employment tribunal — insisting that another body (like the police or MI5) investigate first is not a valid reason to delay or avoid the tribunal.
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders, such as a direction to confirm whether you wish to continue, can lead to your claim being struck out.
- Unreasonable conduct that causes a hearing to be postponed can result in a costs order against you, even if you are a litigant in person.
This case shows what can happen when a claimant becomes fixated on a different route to justice — in this instance, a criminal investigation — and refuses to pursue their employment tribunal claim in the way the tribunal expects.
The former employee brought unfair dismissal and discrimination claims against Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd. However, from early on, he argued that his case could not be resolved without a criminal investigation by MI5, the Serious Fraud Office, or the British Transport Police. He sent multiple emails to the tribunal and the respondent repeating this position, and even suggested the case involved bioterrorism and national security.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal had already warned the claimant that his claims might be struck out. He had also been ordered to state clearly whether he wanted to continue his employment claims — an order he did not comply with. At the strike-out hearing, the tribunal found that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant was not willing to pursue them in the employment tribunal. The claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(a).
A costly approach
The claimant was also ordered to pay £2,700 in costs. This was because his conduct — insisting on a criminal investigation and failing to engage with the tribunal process — had led to a postponement of earlier proceedings, which was deemed unreasonable.
For anyone considering an employment claim, this case is a reminder that the tribunal expects you to pursue your case within its own jurisdiction. If you believe other bodies should investigate, that does not give you a free pass to ignore tribunal orders or delay proceedings. Doing so risks not only losing your claim but also being ordered to pay the other side's costs.
Similar cases
Former employee's claims struck out after failing to provide details
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after he failed to particularize them despite multiple hearings and warnings. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and unreasonable conduct.
Sanctions law prevented maternity pay: dismissal claim struck out
A housekeeping assistant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because UK sanctions on the company's owner made it illegal to pay her. The tribunal said the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
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.