Claim dismissed after withdrawal emails from husband's account: reconsideration refused
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after emails purporting to withdraw it were sent from her husband's email account. The tribunal refused her application to reconsider, finding her hacking allegation improbable and unsupported by evidence.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #withdrawal-of-claim
- #hacked-email
- #reconsideration
- #burden-of-proof
Key facts
- The claimant's claim was dismissed after emails purporting to withdraw the claim were sent from her husband's email account.
- The claimant and her husband denied sending the withdrawal emails, alleging the account was hacked by a former colleague.
- The tribunal found the hacking allegation improbable and unsupported by cogent evidence.
- The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused.
Timeline
-
Withdrawal emails sent
Three emails were sent from the claimant's husband's email account to the tribunal, purporting to withdraw the claim.
-
Further withdrawal email
A fourth email was sent from the same account, also purporting to withdraw the claim.
-
Claim dismissed
The tribunal dismissed the claim following the apparent withdrawal.
-
Judgment on reconsideration
The tribunal issued a judgment refusing the claimant's application for reconsideration.
-
Reconsideration application refused
Employment Judge Ramsden refused the respondent's application for reconsideration of the earlier judgment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to grant the former employee's application for reconsideration of the dismissal of her claim, after she argued that emails withdrawing the claim were sent by a hacker and not by her or her husband.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the former employee's application for reconsideration, confirming the earlier decision to dismiss her claim.
The key reason was that the former employee bore the burden of proving the withdrawal emails were not sent by her or on her behalf, and she failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the hacking allegation. The tribunal found the alleged hacking scenario improbable, given the timing and content of the emails.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you claim your email was hacked, you need to provide solid evidence such as expert reports or forensic analysis, not just your own testimony.
- The burden of proof is on you to show that withdrawal emails were not sent by you or your representative if they come from your nominated contact email.
- Tribunals are unlikely to accept improbable hacking stories without corroborating evidence, especially if the emails show knowledge of the case and legal procedures.
- Keep your email account secure and monitor it regularly, especially during ongoing litigation, to avoid disputes over communications.
When a withdrawal email isn't what it seems
This case shows the difficulty of overturning a dismissal based on an alleged unauthorised withdrawal. The former employee's claim was dismissed after emails were sent from her husband's email account, which was the tribunal's nominated contact point. She and her husband insisted they did not send the emails and that the account was hacked by a former colleague with a grudge.
Why the tribunal said no
The tribunal found the hacking story improbable. The emails were sent just before the final hearing, included details about the case and legal procedures, and no other emails were interfered with. The former employee provided no evidence from an IT expert or the person she claimed helped her investigate. The tribunal ruled that she had not met the burden of proving the emails were not sent by her or on her behalf.
What this means for similar claims
If you are representing yourself and using a family member's email for tribunal communications, you are responsible for the security of that account. If you allege hacking, you must provide concrete evidence – witness statements alone are unlikely to suffice. This case also highlights that tribunals will scrutinise the plausibility of your explanation, especially if the timing and content of the disputed messages suggest they were sent by someone with knowledge of the case.
Similar cases
Withdrawn unfair dismissal claim: no power to revive after reconsideration
A former employee who withdrew her unfair dismissal claim against Landmark Space Ltd could not revive it, even after applying for reconsideration. The tribunal confirmed it has no power to set aside a withdrawal.
Judgments set aside after tribunal failed to phone absent respondent
A tribunal has set aside its own earlier judgments after admitting it should have telephoned the respondent before proceeding in their absence. The case will now be reheard.
Administrative error leads to revocation of dismissal judgment: tribunal allows claim to proceed
A former employee who responded to a tribunal direction within time but used the wrong case number had her unfair dismissal claim reinstated after the tribunal revoked its original judgment.
ADHD disability claim fails for lack of medical evidence
A former employee who claimed disability discrimination based on ADHD had her claim dismissed after the tribunal found she had not proven she had the condition on the balance of probabilities.