Former employee's repeated claims struck out as abuse of process
A former Virgin Media employee had his latest tribunal claims struck out after bringing complaints that had already been decided in previous cases. The tribunal found the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #no-reasonable-prospect
- #abuse-of-process
- #time-limits
- #judicial-proceedings-immunity
Key facts
- The claimant presented claims that had already been decided in previous tribunal cases.
- The claimant's disability discrimination complaint related to an email from 31 January 2018.
- The claimant alleged the respondent took advantage of his disability by seeking compensation from a county court.
- The claimant complained about accidental injuries caused by termination of employment.
- The tribunal found the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
Timeline
-
Previous claim 2404733/2012
The claimant brought an earlier claim which was adjudicated.
-
Previous claim 2423771/2017
The claimant brought another claim which was adjudicated.
-
Claimant's email to respondent
The claimant sent an email to the respondent which he alleges was not responded to, forming the basis of a disability discrimination complaint.
-
Previous claim 2402306/2019
The claimant brought another claim which was adjudicated.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the former employee's claim on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success, was an abuse of process, or was brought outside the statutory time limits.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety. The key reasons were:
- Several complaints had already been decided in previous tribunal cases (claims 2404733/2012, 2423771/2017, and 2402306/2019), making it an abuse of process to bring them again.
- A disability discrimination complaint based on an email from January 2018 was presented far outside the time limit, and it was not just and equitable to extend it.
- Other complaints, such as those about holiday pay, expenses, and accidental injuries, were either out of time or outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
- The tribunal also found that some allegations were covered by judicial proceedings immunity, as they related to conduct in county court proceedings.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- You cannot bring the same claim again once it has been decided by a tribunal – doing so risks having your case struck out as an abuse of process.
- Employment tribunal claims must be brought within strict time limits (usually three months less one day from the act complained of). Late claims are rarely allowed.
- If you have multiple claims against the same employer, consider bringing them all together in one claim to avoid being barred by earlier judgments.
- Complaints about conduct in court proceedings (such as how a solicitor acted) may be protected by judicial proceedings immunity and cannot be pursued in an employment tribunal.
What this case shows
This case demonstrates that employment tribunals will not allow claimants to re-litigate issues that have already been decided. The former employee had brought several previous claims against Virgin Media, all of which had been adjudicated. His latest attempt to bring similar complaints – including about holiday pay, expenses, and an email from 2018 – was struck out as an abuse of process.
The tribunal also highlighted the importance of time limits. The disability discrimination complaint related to an email from January 2018, but the claim was not presented until 2022. The tribunal found no good reason to extend the time limit, noting that the delay was excessive and the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success anyway.
What Virgin Media did right
Virgin Media's solicitor successfully argued that the claims were either already decided, out of time, or outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The company had a clear record of previous tribunal judgments, which the tribunal accepted as conclusive. This shows the value of maintaining accurate records of all previous proceedings.
Why this matters
For anyone considering an employment tribunal claim, this case is a reminder that you cannot keep bringing the same complaints in the hope of a different outcome. Once a claim has been decided, it is final. It also underscores the need to act promptly – waiting years to bring a claim will almost certainly result in it being rejected.
The case also illustrates that tribunals have strong powers to strike out claims that are hopeless or brought for improper purposes. Claimants should seek legal advice early to avoid wasting time and resources on claims that are bound to fail.
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.
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.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
Retire-and-return scheme leads to constructive dismissal claim, but breach of contract and age discrimination claims struck out
A consultant clinical scientist with 23 years' service resigned after a 'retire and return' scheme reduced her role. The tribunal struck out her breach of contract and age discrimination claims, but allowed her unfair dismissal claim to proceed.