Former IT professional's discrimination claim struck out after tampering with evidence
A tribunal struck out a former JP Morgan employee's discrimination claim after he inserted a poem into disclosed documents and sent the tampered version to the tribunal. Most allegations were also dismissed as out of time.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #out-of-time
- #time-limits
- #strike-out
- #deposit-order
- #victimisation
- #document-tampering
Key facts
- The claimant issued proceedings on 21 December 2020, but the alleged discrimination occurred between 2016 and 2018.
- The claimant inserted a poem into documents disclosed by the respondent and sent the tampered document to the tribunal.
- The tribunal found no continuing act linking the historic allegations to the grievance appeal outcome in October 2020.
- The claimant failed to identify any protected act to support a victimisation claim.
- The claimant did not comply with a tribunal order and failed to respond to a strike-out warning.
Timeline
-
Alleged discrimination begins
The claimant alleges incidents of direct sexual orientation discrimination and harassment by colleagues, including Keith Enfield, Denis Mikhailov, and Pavlos Lazaridis.
-
Claimant goes off sick
The claimant stopped attending work due to ill health and never returned.
-
Grievance appeal outcome
Nick Charlwood conducted a paper review and upheld the original grievance decision, notifying the claimant.
-
Claim issued
The claimant filed an ET1 claim form alleging discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
-
Preliminary hearing before REJ Taylor
The claimant was given an opportunity to provide details of allegations and identify a protected act for victimisation.
-
Claimant sends tampered document to tribunal
The claimant emailed the tribunal a document with an inserted poem, alleging the respondent had added it to discredit him.
-
Preliminary hearing on strike-out and time points
Employment Judge Jones heard applications to strike out the claim and dismiss out-of-time allegations.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal dismissed most claims as out of time, struck out the victimisation claim, and ordered a deposit for the remaining grievance appeal claim.
-
Final strike-out
Employment Judge Beyzade struck out the entire claim for non-compliance with a tribunal order and failure to pursue the claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's complaints of sexual orientation discrimination and harassment were brought within the statutory time limits, and if not, whether it was just and equitable to extend time. It also considered whether the claim should be struck out due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct in tampering with evidence.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct sexual orientation discrimination and harassment against individual respondents and the bank for the period 2016–2018 as out of time, refusing to extend time. The victimisation claim was struck out as misconceived and an amendment refused. The entire claim was later struck out in 2023 for non-compliance with a tribunal order and failure to pursue the claim.
- The claimant had inserted a poem into a disclosed document and sent the tampered version to the tribunal, alleging the respondent had added it to discredit him.
- The tribunal found no continuing act linking the historic allegations to the grievance appeal outcome in October 2020.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed and struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Time limits for discrimination claims are strict — you generally have three months from the last act of discrimination to bring a claim.
- Tampering with evidence or sending altered documents to a tribunal is likely to result in your claim being struck out for unreasonable conduct.
- If you are relying on a 'continuing act' to link historic allegations to a recent event, you must show a clear ongoing policy or practice, not just a series of separate incidents.
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders and ignoring strike-out warnings can lead to your entire claim being dismissed.
This case shows how procedural failings can derail a discrimination claim, even before the merits are considered. The former employee, an IT professional on a £55,000 salary, alleged that colleagues at JP Morgan had discriminated against him on grounds of sexual orientation between 2016 and 2018. He stopped attending work in May 2018 due to ill health and never returned. He raised a grievance, which was rejected, and an appeal in October 2020 also failed. He then issued tribunal proceedings in December 2020.
The tribunal found that the allegations against individual colleagues and the bank for the 2016-2018 period were brought far outside the three-month time limit. The claimant argued that the grievance appeal outcome in October 2020 was a continuing act that brought the historic allegations within time, but the tribunal disagreed. There was no evidence of a continuing discriminatory practice — just a series of separate incidents that had ended years earlier.
The document tampering that sealed the case
Perhaps more damaging was the claimant's conduct during proceedings. He inserted a poem into a document that had been disclosed by the respondent and then sent the tampered version to the tribunal, claiming the respondent had added it to discredit him. The tribunal described this as unreasonable conduct. When combined with his failure to comply with a tribunal order and his lack of response to a strike-out warning, the tribunal struck out the entire claim in 2023.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering a discrimination claim, this case is a cautionary tale about the importance of time limits and procedural compliance. Even if you believe you have been treated unfairly, you must act promptly — usually within three months of the last incident. If you are relying on a grievance or appeal to extend time, you need to show that the later decision is itself an act of discrimination, not just a review of past events. And above all, never tamper with evidence: it will almost certainly destroy your case.
Similar cases
Former employee's discrimination claims struck out for being out of time
The tribunal struck out race and disability discrimination claims because they were presented late, and the claimant failed to attend the hearing or provide reasons for the delay.
Race and religion discrimination claims struck out as out of time and lacking merit
A tribunal struck out a former technician's race and religion discrimination claims as out of time and without reasonable prospects. A deposit order was made for a constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Whistleblowing and victimisation claims survive strike-out but deposit ordered
A tribunal refused to strike out a universal education facilitator's whistleblowing and victimisation claims against Turning Point, but ordered her to pay a £150 deposit for each to proceed.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.