Cases3307261/2023

Claimant v Agricultural Harvest Store Installations Limited

5 February 2025Before Employment Judge Grahamon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissaldismissed on withdrawal

Claim dismissed under Rule 47 on 5 February 2025 due to claimant's wilful non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure to attend the public preliminary hearing without reasonable excuse. The tribunal found the claimant's conduct to be unreasonable and vexatious.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)dismissed on withdrawal

Claim dismissed under Rule 47 on 5 February 2025 along with the constructive dismissal claim. Claimant failed to provide medical records, disability impact statement, or comply with tribunal directions. The claim was pursued for an improper purpose to extract settlement funds.

Facts

Claimant filed claims of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination in June 2023 but repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders including providing medical records and disability impact statement. His legal representative retired and he could not find replacement. He repeatedly made late postponement applications and failed to engage with respondent or tribunal. He did not attend public preliminary hearing on 5 February 2025 listed to consider deposit order, claiming he expected mediation instead. His claim was dismissed under Rule 47 for non-compliance and non-attendance.

Decision

Tribunal found claimant's conduct unreasonable and vexatious including wilful non-compliance with orders, repeated postponement applications, and pursuing claim with little merit for improper purpose of extracting settlement. Claim dismissed. Costs of £3,000 awarded against claimant representing respondent's counsel fees for the final hearing. Claimant failed to provide evidence of means despite multiple opportunities.

Practical note

Even unrepresented claimants can face significant costs orders where they wilfully disregard tribunal orders and pursue claims vexatiously for an improper purpose rather than genuine legal merit.

Legal authorities cited

Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University [2012] ICR 159Gee v Shell UK Ltd [2003] IRLR 82Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420Sumukan (UK) Ltd and another v Raghavan EAT 0087/09HM Attorney General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759Millin v Capsticks LLP UKEAT/0093/14/RNAQ Ltd v Holden [2012] IRLR 648Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham UKEAT/0439/04ET Marler Ltd v Robertson [1974] ICR 72Scott v Russell [2013]Garnes v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1237/97Dyer v Secretary of State for Employment EAT 183/83Brooks v Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust EAT 0246/18Shields Automative Ltd v Grieg UKEAT/0024/10Jilley v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust UKEAT/0584/06

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 82Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 47Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 76Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 74

Case details

Case number
3307261/2023
Decision date
5 February 2025
Hearing type
costs
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
agriculture
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No