Cases6006814/2024

Claimant v Hovat Limited

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

The claim was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that the claimant conducted proceedings in an unreasonable and vexatious manner. The claimant sent voluminous, abusive correspondence, made unfounded allegations of fraud against the respondent's solicitor, refused to accept tribunal orders, repeatedly challenged the solicitor's authority despite tribunal rulings, reported the solicitor to police for harassment, and failed to engage constructively with the tribunal process.

Facts

The claimant brought an employment claim against her former employer, Hovat Limited, a member of the British Printing Industries Federation (BPIF). From September 2024 onwards, she sent voluminous, abusive correspondence to the respondent, their solicitor Ian Steel, and the tribunal. She repeatedly challenged Mr Steel's authority to act, made unfounded allegations of fraud, refused to communicate with him, demanded default judgments, reported him to police for harassment, and returned tribunal correspondence claiming it was malicious. Despite multiple judicial warnings from Employment Judges Corrigan, Leith, Hart, and Lumby about the consequences of her conduct, she continued this pattern of behaviour.

Decision

Employment Judge Liz Ord struck out the claimant's claims in their entirety under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Applying the two-stage test from HM Prison Service v Dolby and Hassan v Tesco, the tribunal found that the claimant had conducted proceedings in an unreasonable and vexatious manner, and exercised discretion that strike out was a proportionate response to her behaviour.

Practical note

Persistent refusal to engage constructively with tribunal processes, including refusing to accept tribunal orders and making unfounded allegations against the opposing party's representative despite multiple judicial warnings, can result in strike out for vexatious conduct even without the merits of the underlying claim being considered.

Legal authorities cited

HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd UKEAT/0098/16

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 38

Case details

Case number
6006814/2024
Decision date
26 November 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No