Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out this claim as vexatious and having no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant failed to articulate any connection between the respondent's actions and his religion (being a Pastor). The claim was inherently implausible and had no legal basis as the respondent was a solicitor representing the claimant's employer in a previous case, not the employer herself.
Struck out as vexatious and having no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant could not identify any provision, criterion or practice that was applied to him. The claim lacked any factual or legal foundation.
Struck out as vexatious and having no reasonable prospects of success. While the claimant perceived conduct as unwanted in relation to a date listing letter, there was no prospect of establishing that this perception was reasonable or related to his protected characteristic in any legally cognisable way.
Struck out as vexatious and having no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant could not identify any protected act upon which the victimisation claim was founded, and provided no coherent basis for this claim.
Facts
The claimant brought proceedings against a solicitor (Ms McGuire) who had represented his former employer myCare Tayside Limited in earlier tribunal proceedings. The claim appeared to relate to the solicitor's use of a date listing letter in the original case. The claimant had previously brought an unsuccessful claim against his employer (case 8000171/2022) which had been struck out. He then brought two further cases in 2024, both involving the same respondent solicitor. The claimant claimed discrimination on grounds of religion, stating he was a Pastor, but could not articulate any connection between his protected characteristic and the respondent's actions. He also sought reinstatement, despite the respondent not being his employer.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 38(1)(c) on three grounds: the claim was vexatious, it was conducted in a vexatious manner, and it had no reasonable prospects of success. The judge found that matters relating to the date listing letter should have been raised in the original claim against the employer under the principle of res judicata. The claimant could not identify any legal basis for his discrimination claims or explain how his religion was connected to the respondent's actions. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application for expenses relating to the transfer of the case from Nottingham to Scotland.
Practical note
Attempting to relitigate issues that should have been raised in earlier proceedings, particularly against a representative rather than the actual employer, will be struck out as vexatious even where the claimant is unrepresented, if there is no coherent legal basis for the claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6017719/2024
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Ms D McGuire
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No