Employee's witness intimidation leads to claim being struck out
An employment tribunal struck out an unfair dismissal claim after the claimant harassed and intimidated a proposed witness on social media and in person.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #witness-intimidation
- #social-media-abuse
- #strike-out
- #scandalous-conduct
- #police-involvement
Key facts
- Mr Wong was employed by Royal Mail from 9 September 2003 until his summary dismissal on 4 November 2021.
- He brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination, but withdrew the race discrimination claim.
- Mr Wong engaged in a campaign of intimidation against Mrs McDonald, a Royal Mail employee and proposed witness.
- He posted offensive messages on Facebook targeting Mrs McDonald's appearance and made abusive comments.
- Mrs McDonald reported the incidents to the police and was prescribed antidepressants due to stress.
- The tribunal struck out Mr Wong's claims under Rule 37(1)(b) for scandalous, unreasonable, or vexatious conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Wong began working for Royal Mail in an Operational Postal Grade role.
-
Summary dismissal
Mr Wong was summarily dismissed for conduct.
-
First offensive Facebook post
Mr Wong posted a highly offensive message on Facebook, which the tribunal later found was part of a campaign of intimidation.
-
Early Conciliation started
Early Conciliation began.
-
Early Conciliation ended
Early Conciliation ended.
-
Altercation at Asda
Mrs McDonald alleged Mr Wong was abusive and aggressive towards her at an Asda store; he denied this.
-
Claim presented
Mr Wong presented his claim to the tribunal.
-
Facebook post under 'VICTIM at Royal Mail'
Mr Wong posted offensive language directed at former colleagues.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Beever conducted a preliminary hearing and issued case management orders.
-
Race discrimination claim withdrawn
Mr Wong confirmed in writing his intention to withdraw the race discrimination claim.
-
Altercation at GP surgery
Mrs McDonald alleged Mr Wong was aggressive and abusive outside her GP surgery; he denied this.
-
Facebook post referencing 'algorithms'
Mr Wong posted a message using 'folically challenged obese cunt', which the tribunal found was directed at Mrs McDonald.
-
Facebook post referencing 'gastric band' and 'hair transplant'
Mr Wong posted a message targeting Mrs McDonald's appearance.
-
Defaced Royal Mail leaflet
A Royal Mail leaflet with offensive handwriting was found at Mr Wong's address; the tribunal found he wrote it.
-
Strike-out hearing
The tribunal heard Royal Mail's application to strike out Mr Wong's claims.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Green struck out Mr Wong's claims under Rule 37(1)(b).
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's campaign of intimidation against a witness, including offensive Facebook posts and confrontations, justified striking out his claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim (the race discrimination claim had already been withdrawn).
The key reason was that the claimant engaged in a deliberate campaign of intimidation against a Royal Mail employee who was a proposed witness. He posted offensive messages about her appearance on Facebook, confronted her in public, and defaced a Royal Mail leaflet with abusive comments. The witness reported the incidents to the police and was prescribed antidepressants due to stress.
The tribunal found this conduct was scandalous, unreasonable, and vexatious, making it impossible to have a fair hearing. No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Intimidating or harassing a witness can lead to your entire claim being struck out, regardless of its merits.
- Social media posts targeting a witness or opponent are likely to be considered scandalous conduct by a tribunal.
- If you withdraw part of your claim, ensure you actively pursue the remaining claim or risk it being struck out for non-compliance.
- Representing yourself does not excuse you from complying with tribunal orders or behaving appropriately.
What this case shows
This case illustrates that employment tribunals will not tolerate conduct that undermines the fairness of proceedings. The claimant, an 18-year veteran of Royal Mail, was dismissed for conduct and brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination. However, after his dismissal, he engaged in a campaign of intimidation against a Royal Mail employee who was a proposed witness for the respondent.
He posted offensive messages on Facebook targeting the witness's appearance, including references to her weight and hair loss. He also confronted her in person on two occasions, which she reported to the police. The witness was so distressed that she was prescribed antidepressants. The tribunal found that this behaviour was designed to intimidate her and prevent her from giving evidence.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have avoided the strike-out by not engaging in any conduct that could be seen as intimidating or harassing a witness. Even if he believed his dismissal was unfair, targeting a witness is a serious breach of tribunal rules. He also failed to provide a witness statement and did not actively pursue his case, which further justified the strike-out.
Why this result matters
This decision sends a clear message that claimants must conduct themselves appropriately throughout tribunal proceedings. Intimidating witnesses, whether online or in person, will not be tolerated and can result in the loss of the right to have your case heard. It also highlights that tribunals have strong powers to strike out claims that are pursued in a scandalous or vexatious manner.
Similar cases
IT support technician's claim struck out after abusive conduct in tribunal
An employment tribunal struck out the entire claim of an IT support technician who called counsel 'a retard' and discussed evidence on Twitter during the hearing, ruling his conduct made a fair trial impossible.
Postman's unfair dismissal claim struck out after scandalous conduct at hearings
A postman with 16 years' service who took undelivered mail home on Christmas Eve had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after the tribunal found his conduct during proceedings was scandalous, unreasonable, and vexatious.
Claim struck out after claimant's scandalous conduct and repeated failures to comply with orders
An employment tribunal struck out an administrative assistant's unfair dismissal claim after she behaved disruptively, made unfounded allegations, and repeatedly failed to provide further particulars despite multiple orders.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.