Claimant v Trustees of the London Clinic
Outcome
Individual claims
The entire claim was struck out as an abuse of process under Rule 38(1)(b). The claimant filed a second claim (6012096/25) which was nearly identical to his first claim (6013251/24) on the same facts. The tribunal found this to be scandalous and unreasonable conduct, amounting to an attempt to relitigate matters already before the tribunal and to circumvent the potential strike-out of the first claim.
The entire claim was struck out as an abuse of process under Rule 38(1)(b). The claimant filed a second claim (6012096/25) which was nearly identical to his first claim (6013251/24) on the same facts. The tribunal found this to be scandalous and unreasonable conduct, amounting to an attempt to relitigate matters already before the tribunal and to circumvent the potential strike-out of the first claim.
Facts
The claimant filed a second claim (6012096/25) on 8 April 2025 which was nearly identical to his first claim (6013251/24) against the same respondent on the same facts. The only differences were minor changes to earnings figures and the removal of sex and sexual orientation discrimination claims, but the particulars at section 8.2 were identical. The respondent applied to strike out the second claim as an abuse of process. The claimant appeared in person at the preliminary hearing and claimed he filed the second claim to address new evidence about allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards a colleague, though this explanation was inconsistent with the timing and content of the claim.
Decision
Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston struck out the entire second claim under Rule 38(1)(b) as scandalous and unreasonable conduct amounting to an abuse of process. The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation for filing the duplicative claim and concluded it was an attempt to circumvent the potential strike-out of the first claim (which was subject to an unless order). The tribunal applied the principles of res judicata and Henderson v Henderson, finding that allowing the claim to proceed would undermine tribunal process and the unless order.
Practical note
Filing a duplicative claim on identical facts to avoid compliance with case management orders or a potential strike-out will itself be struck out as an abuse of process, even for litigants in person who are aware of the consequences but choose not to withdraw.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6012096/2025
- Decision date
- 1 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No