Claimant v L & K Hotels Ltd

Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) because the claimant contacted and intimidated a key witness (Mr Jablonski), threatening him with words to the effect that he would not see his family again if he testified. This conduct was scandalous, vexatious and unreasonable, making a fair trial impossible as the witness refused to give evidence due to genuine fear for his safety and that of his family.

Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) on the same basis as the constructive dismissal claim - the claimant's witness intimidation made a fair hearing impossible.

Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) on the same basis - the intimidation of Mr Jablonski, whose evidence was crucial to determining factual disputes about hours worked and payments made, meant the tribunal could not fairly determine this claim.

Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) on the same basis - Mr Jablonski was a key witness to the alleged deductions from cash payments and his withdrawal from the proceedings made a fair trial impossible.

Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) on the same basis - Mr Jablonski was identified as perpetrator or direct witness to the majority of the alleged breaches and his absence prevented fair determination.

Claims relating to rest breaks and maximum working hours struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) - as the claimant's line manager working alongside him daily, Mr Jablonski was the witness best placed to give evidence about hours, breaks and duties, and his withdrawal prevented fair trial.

Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) on the same basis - Mr Jablonski's evidence was essential to determining working patterns and payments, and a fair hearing became impossible following his intimidation.