Cases3307706/2023

Claimant v ABM Aviation UK Ltd

25 March 2025Before Employment Judge S GeorgeReadinghybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalwithdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant's second representative on 23 October 2023 after acknowledging the claimant did not have qualifying service for an unfair dismissal claim.

Redundancy Paystruck out

Claim struck out under unless order dated 6 August 2024 after claimant failed to comply with order for specific disclosure of digital files of emails by 13 August 2024. Tribunal found claim was based on forged documents and respondent denied claimant was ever employed by them.

Breach of Contractstruck out

Notice pay claim struck out for failure to comply with unless order. Respondent successfully demonstrated claim was based on fabricated payslips containing basic errors showing they were forgeries.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Wages claim struck out after claimant failed to provide electronic versions of emails as ordered, preventing tribunal from assessing validity of evidence. Tribunal satisfied on balance that claimant was never employed by respondent and documents relied upon were not genuine.

Facts

Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay and unpaid wages alleging employment from July 2022 to May 2023. Respondent denied claimant was ever employed and stated payslips disclosed were forgeries containing basic errors. Claimant withdrew unfair dismissal claim after acknowledging insufficient service. Respondent applied for specific disclosure of digital files of emails which claimant relied upon. Unless order made requiring disclosure by 13 August 2024. Claimant failed to comply and claim was dismissed. Claimant had three different representatives during proceedings before ultimately representing himself.

Decision

Tribunal found claimant acted vexatiously and unreasonably in bringing and conducting litigation based on probable forgeries and fabricated evidence. Claim dismissed for failure to comply with unless order. Costs of £4,293 awarded against claimant representing whole of respondent's costs as entirety incurred defending claim based on untruth. Tribunal declined to consider means as claimant failed to provide financial information despite being ordered to do so.

Practical note

Bringing a claim based on forged documents and fabricated evidence constitutes vexatious conduct justifying a full costs order, particularly where the untruth is the foundation of the entire claim and represents an abuse of limited tribunal resources.

Legal authorities cited

Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420Herry v Dudley MBC [2017] I.C.R. 610AQ plc v Holden [2012] IRLR 648HCA International Ltd v May-Bheemal (EAT/0477/10)Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University [2012] ICR 159Peat v Birmingham City Council UKEAT/0503/11

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 rule 82Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 rule 74Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 rule 47Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 rule 76

Case details

Case number
3307706/2023
Decision date
25 March 2025
Hearing type
costs
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Service
10 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No