Claimant v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. – London Branch
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out because the Claimant engaged in dual employment which undermined the factual basis of her complaints about workload and hours. Her conduct of proceedings was scandalous and unreasonable, including making untrue representations and forging medical documents, making a fair trial impossible.
Claim struck out because the Claimant engaged in dual employment which undermined the factual basis of her complaints about workload and hours. Her conduct of proceedings was scandalous and unreasonable, including making untrue representations and forging medical documents, making a fair trial impossible.
Claim struck out because the Claimant engaged in dual employment which undermined the factual basis of her complaints. Her conduct of proceedings was scandalous and unreasonable, including making untrue representations and forging medical documents, making a fair trial impossible.
Amendment application was to be considered at the strike out hearing but claim was struck out entirely. The Claimant alleged her dismissal in December 2024 was pregnancy discrimination but the tribunal found she was dismissed for gross misconduct including dual employment.
Facts
The Claimant worked as Senior Counsel for the Respondent bank from April 2022 to December 2024 and brought claims of race and disability discrimination. The Respondent discovered the Claimant had simultaneously been working full-time for another company (StatPro) from November 2022. Following a disciplinary investigation which also revealed she had misrepresented her qualifications, the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct in December 2024. The Claimant denied dual employment, claiming identity fraud, but did not comply with disclosure orders. The tribunal found she had forged medical letters both to the employer and to the tribunal to obtain adjournments.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim entirely. It found the claim was scandalous and vexatious as it was based on the false premise of singular employment. The Claimant's conduct of proceedings was scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious, including making untrue representations and forging medical documents. A fair trial was impossible due to compromised credibility, unreliable medical evidence, and the disproportionate use of tribunal resources. Strike out was a proportionate response despite being draconian.
Practical note
Fundamental dishonesty in the conduct of proceedings, including forging medical evidence and making false representations to the tribunal, will result in strike out even in discrimination cases, as a litigant who abuses the tribunal process forfeits their right to adjudication.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201133/2024
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Counsel in Corporate Legal
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No