Eight claims struck out after tribunal finds conduct scandalous and vexatious
A former employee who filed eight separate claims against the Department for Education and others has had all claims struck out after the tribunal found his conduct scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #scandalous-conduct
- #vexatious-litigation
- #non-compliance-with-orders
- #excessive-correspondence
- #failure-to-attend
Key facts
- The claimant filed 8 separate claims against multiple respondents including the Department for Education and various individuals.
- The claimant failed to attend multiple hearings and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide medical evidence and copy correspondence to the respondent's solicitor.
- The claimant or his representatives sent voluminous emails to numerous unconnected parties, including police and media, alleging criminal conduct by the respondents and tribunal staff.
- The tribunal found the claimant's conduct scandalous, unreasonable, and vexatious, and that a fair trial was no longer possible.
- The claims were struck out under Rule 37.
Timeline
-
First claim issued
Claimant issued first claim in Midlands West Region against Department for Education and others.
-
First case management hearing
Employment Judge Dimblylow held first preliminary hearing; claimant represented by solicitor.
-
Second case management hearing
Employment Judge Algazy KC held hearing; claimant represented by direct access barrister.
-
Third case management hearing
Claimant did not attend; mother attended with fit note; hearing postponed.
-
Fourth case management hearing
Claimant joined late claiming illness; ordered to provide medical evidence (not provided). Judge warned about conduct and potential strike out.
-
Order to communicate by post only
Regional Judge Findlay ordered claimant to communicate with tribunal only by post due to excessive emails.
-
Strike out hearing (day 1)
Claimant did not attend; email sent on morning claiming illness but no medical evidence; tribunal proceeded in his absence.
-
Strike out hearing (day 2)
Tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 37 for scandalous, unreasonable, and vexatious conduct and non-compliance with orders.
-
Strike out judgment sent
Written judgment with reasons sent to parties.
The legal issue
Whether the claims should be struck out because of the former employee's conduct, including failing to comply with tribunal orders, sending voluminous emails to police and media alleging criminal activity, and not attending hearings.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all eight claims under Rule 37.
Key reasons:
- The former employee failed to attend multiple hearings and did not comply with orders to provide medical evidence.
- He or his representatives sent excessive emails to numerous unconnected parties, including police and media, alleging criminal conduct by the respondents and tribunal staff.
- The tribunal found his conduct scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious, and that a fair trial was no longer possible.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Filing multiple claims without proper basis can lead to strike-out if the tribunal views the conduct as an abuse of process.
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders – especially repeated failures – is a fast track to having your case thrown out.
- Sending emails to police, media or other unconnected parties about your case can be seen as scandalous conduct and harm your credibility.
- If you are unable to attend a hearing due to illness, you must provide medical evidence promptly; a vague email on the morning is unlikely to be enough.
A pattern of conduct that made a fair trial impossible
This case shows how a tribunal can strike out claims when a litigant's behaviour undermines the entire process. The former employee had issued eight separate claims against the Department for Education and various individuals, alleging discrimination and whistleblowing. Over several years, the tribunal held multiple case management hearings to try to get the claims ready for trial. But the former employee repeatedly failed to attend hearings, did not provide ordered medical evidence, and instead sent a flood of emails to police, media and others alleging criminal activity by the respondents and even tribunal staff.
What the losing side could have done differently
The tribunal gave the former employee multiple chances. After earlier warnings about his conduct, he could have complied with orders, attended hearings, and focused on the legal issues rather than sending correspondence to unconnected parties. Providing medical evidence when claiming illness would have helped. Instead, on the morning of the strike-out hearing, an email was sent saying he was ill but no medical note was provided – and the email was not even copied to the respondent's solicitor. The tribunal decided to proceed in his absence.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employment tribunals have powers to strike out claims that are scandalous, vexatious or not actively pursued. This case is a reminder that bringing multiple claims does not give a litigant free rein to ignore orders or engage in conduct that prevents a fair hearing. For anyone considering a tribunal claim, the key lesson is to engage constructively with the process, comply with orders, and keep correspondence focused on the parties and the tribunal – not on outside individuals or organisations.
Similar cases
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders, including providing a witness statement and further information.
Ground operations lead loses unfair dismissal claim after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A ground operations lead's claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination against British Airways were struck out after he repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders and did not attend the preliminary hearing.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: employee with less than two years' service failed to comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because he had less than two years' service, and his remaining claims were dismissed after he failed to attend the hearing or comply with case management orders.
Former stylist's unfair dismissal claim thrown out after failing to attend hearing
A tribunal dismissed all claims of unfair dismissal and homophobic abuse brought by a former Principal Stylist after he failed to attend the preliminary hearing or comply with case management orders.