Claimant v Secretary of State for Education
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out as an abuse of process. This was the claimant's second claim concerning the same TRA complaint from March 2022. The jurisdictional issue (whether respondent was a qualifications body under s.53 Equality Act 2010) had been determined in earlier proceedings case 2217651/2023, where Employment Judge Henderson found the tribunal had no jurisdiction. Issue estoppel applied. The claimant's attempt to reframe the claim by arguing the TRA investigated his own conduct could and should have been raised in the first claim.
Struck out as an abuse of process for the same reasons as the race discrimination claim. The claimant was attempting to re-litigate a jurisdictional issue already determined by Employment Judge Henderson in case 2217651/2023. The claim was duplicative and misused tribunal process.
Struck out as an abuse of process. The claimant was not asserting employee or worker status with the respondent, which is a jurisdictional requirement for whistleblowing detriment claims under s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was hopeless. Although not raised in the first claim, the claimant was aware of potential whistleblowing issues (mentioned in first claim form). It was an abuse to expect the respondent to defend a hopeless claim that could and should have been brought earlier if at all.
Facts
The claimant, a former teacher, complained in March 2022 to the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) about former colleagues' misconduct. The TRA closed the case with no action in November 2022. The claimant brought a first Employment Tribunal claim in December 2023 for race discrimination and victimisation, arguing the respondent was a qualifications body under s.53 Equality Act 2010. Employment Judge Henderson struck that claim out in October 2024, finding no jurisdiction because the respondent was exempt under s.54(4)(d) as it was exercising functions under the Education Acts. The claimant appealed to the EAT. In January 2025, the claimant brought this second claim, now arguing the TRA had unlawfully investigated his own conduct as a teacher (not just his complaint), and adding a whistleblowing claim.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the second claim as an abuse of process under rule 38. The jurisdictional issue (whether the respondent was a qualifications body) had been determined in the first claim and constituted an issue estoppel. The claimant's reframing of the claim as involving an investigation of his own conduct could and should have been raised in the earlier proceedings. The whistleblowing claim was hopeless as the claimant was not asserting employee or worker status. It was oppressive to require the respondent to defend duplicative proceedings.
Practical note
A claimant cannot bring a second claim repackaging the same factual and legal issues after losing on a jurisdictional point; this is an abuse of process even for an unrepresented party, and lack of legal representation is not a special circumstance excusing failure to raise all issues in the first proceedings.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000653/2025
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Secretary of State for Education
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Teacher
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No