Claimant v Vin-x Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out under rule 38(1)(b) for scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious conduct. Claimant failed to attend two hearings, is subject to a police warrant for harassment of respondent's witnesses, has absconded from the UK, and refused to provide a current address or engage properly with tribunal procedures.
Struck out under rule 38(1)(b) due to the claimant's deliberate and persistent disregard of required procedural steps and intimidation of respondent's witnesses making a fair trial impossible. Claimant's conduct included harassment leading to criminal proceedings.
Struck out as part of the entire claim under rule 38(1)(b) due to the manner in which the claimant conducted proceedings, including failure to attend hearings and intimidation of witnesses.
Struck out as part of the entire claim under rule 38(1)(b) due to scandalous and vexatious conduct by the claimant in pursuing proceedings.
Struck out as part of the entire claim under rule 38(1)(b). Claimant's conduct including absconding from the UK while subject to arrest warrant made fair hearing impossible.
Struck out as part of the entire claim under rule 38(1)(b) due to claimant's unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with tribunal procedures.
Struck out as part of the entire claim. Claimant failed to attend hearing and has made direct communication impossible through intimidation of respondent.
Struck out as part of the entire claim under rule 38(1)(b) and alternatively dismissed under rule 47 for non-attendance at hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a Portfolio Manager with three years' service, resigned claiming constructive dismissal and sex discrimination after being overlooked for promotion. She brought claims including whistleblowing and various payment claims. After filing her claim, she was arrested twice for harassment of the respondent's director, staff and family members, including death threats. She absconded from the UK while subject to a police warrant, refused to provide her current address to the tribunal, and failed to attend two hearings.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the entire claim under rule 38(1)(b) on the basis that the claimant's conduct had been scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious. This included deliberate and persistent disregard of procedural requirements, intimidation of the respondent's witnesses through criminal harassment, and failure to attend hearings. The judge found it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing and that strike out was a proportionate response. The claim was alternatively dismissed under rule 47 for non-attendance.
Practical note
A claim can be struck out where a claimant's criminal conduct towards a respondent and its witnesses makes a fair hearing impossible, even where substantive claims may have had merit, particularly where the claimant absconds and refuses to engage with tribunal procedures.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004408/2024
- Decision date
- 15 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Vin-x Limited
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- Portfolio Manager
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No