Claimant v Tesco Stores Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was, in reality, an attempt to relitigate a previous claim that had been struck out, and the allegations did not concern conduct by the employer Tesco but rather by its solicitors, HMCTS staff, and judicial decisions, none of which were within the tribunal's jurisdiction. The claim was also over 4.5 years out of time with no basis to extend time.
Struck out on the same grounds as the race discrimination claim: no reasonable prospect of success, the claim was an attempt to resurrect a previous struck-out claim, and the allegations concerned conduct of solicitors and tribunal administration rather than the employer.
Struck out on the same grounds as the other discrimination claims: no reasonable prospect of success and the claim was fundamentally an attempt to challenge the previous tribunal's decision rather than raise new substantive claims against the employer.
Struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was an attempt to relitigate the first claim and the allegations did not concern conduct by the employer. Additionally, the claim was significantly out of time with no reasonable basis to extend time under s.48(3) ERA 1996.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a customer assistant by Tesco from October 2004 until his summary dismissal for gross misconduct in February 2019 following an altercation with a customer. He brought a first claim in March 2019 alleging unfair dismissal, race discrimination and arrears of pay. After seven preliminary hearings over three years, characterised by the claimant's abusive conduct towards tribunal staff and judges and deliberate non-compliance with case management orders, EJ Gaskell struck out all claims in March 2022 and subsequently ordered the claimant to pay costs of £13,199.80. In April 2024, the claimant brought a second claim alleging post-termination race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment based on the respondent's alleged failure to properly file its defence in the first claim.
Decision
EJ Murdin struck out the second claim on three alternative grounds: (1) it had no reasonable prospect of success as it was simply an attempt to relitigate the first claim and the allegations concerned conduct of the respondent's solicitors and tribunal administration rather than the employer; (2) the claim was scandalous or vexatious as it had no basis in law and would subject the respondent to disproportionate inconvenience and expense; and (3) the tribunal had no jurisdiction as the claim was over 4.5 years out of time with no basis to extend time. The judge did not find that the manner in which the second claim itself had been conducted was unreasonable.
Practical note
A claimant cannot circumvent a strike-out of their original claim by bringing a second claim alleging discrimination in the handling of the first claim, particularly where the alleged discriminatory acts were committed by the respondent's legal representatives or tribunal administration rather than the employer itself.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1304911/2024
- Decision date
- 17 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Assistant
- Service
- 14 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No