Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The alleged breaches (reporting to police in November 2023 and costs enforcement in March 2024) occurred years after employment ended on 30 June 2017. Contractual claims can only be heard if arising or outstanding at termination. These were not.
The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success. The acts complained of (reporting alleged breach of anonymity order to police and enforcing costs order) were found to be solely motivated by enforcing previous tribunal orders, not by any protected act. Even taking the claimant's case at its highest, there were no facts from which the tribunal could conclude victimisation occurred.
The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success. There were no facts from which the tribunal could conclude that the respondent's actions (police report and costs enforcement) were related to the claimant's race rather than being solely motivated by enforcing previous tribunal orders.
The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success. There were no facts from which the tribunal could conclude that the respondent's actions (police report and costs enforcement) were related to the claimant's sex rather than being solely motivated by enforcing previous tribunal orders.
Facts
The claimant had previously brought two unsuccessful claims against these respondents. Anonymity and restricted reporting orders were made in those proceedings. The claimant appealed those orders. This claim concerned two complaints: (1) the respondents reporting the claimant to police in November 2023 for alleged breach of anonymity orders; and (2) the respondents taking enforcement action in March 2024 in the County Court for costs orders made in the previous proceedings. The claimant's employment had ended on 30 June 2017. The claimant brought claims of breach of contract, victimisation, and harassment based on race and sex.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims under rule 28. The breach of contract claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the alleged breaches occurred years after employment ended and were not outstanding at termination. The victimisation and harassment claims were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success because even taking the claimant's case at its highest, there were no facts from which the tribunal could conclude the respondents' actions were motivated by protected acts or protected characteristics rather than being solely to enforce previous tribunal orders.
Practical note
Post-employment conduct relating to enforcement of tribunal orders and reporting of alleged breaches of anonymity orders will not give rise to jurisdiction for breach of contract claims or constitute actionable victimisation/harassment where motivated solely by enforcement of court orders.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303806/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Mr D.E
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No