Claimant v S&H Wholesale & Distribution t/a Max Distribution Ent Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Allegations relating to being made homeless were struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. Allegations of being followed by police prior to 20 July 2022 struck out as vexatious and for non-compliance. Claims about wrong/broken deliveries up to 17 March 2023 struck out as vexatious and for non-compliance. Other race discrimination claims (underpayment of commission, police following after 20 July 2022, wrong deliveries after 17 March 2023) allowed to proceed.
Same outcome as race discrimination claims. Claimant alleged discrimination as Christian by Pakistani Muslim director. Some allegations struck out (homelessness, pre-July 2022 police following, early delivery issues), others allowed to proceed (commission underpayment, later police following allegations, later delivery issues).
Same outcome pattern as other discrimination claims. Tribunal struck out various allegations but allowed claims relating to commission underpayment and certain delivery issues to proceed, noting claimant relied on alleged disparaging comments about age.
Harassment claims concerning homelessness, police following before 20 July 2022, and delivery issues before 17 March 2023 struck out. Other harassment allegations (police following after that date, later delivery issues) allowed to proceed alongside direct discrimination claims.
Same outcome as race harassment claims. Tribunal struck out certain allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success or being vexatious, but allowed others to proceed.
Strike out application refused. Tribunal found there were arguable issues on worker status requiring oral evidence. Although claimant failed to fully particularise commission shortfall, respondent had records that could clarify matters after disclosure. Claim allowed to proceed for full period.
Strike out application refused. Addressed in separate reasons regarding amendment application. Claim allowed to proceed.
Facts
Claimant worked as marketing representative for respondent wholesale business from October 2021. He brought first claim in July 2022 alleging underpayment of commission, discrimination on grounds of age/race/religion, and being followed/stalked by police at respondent's instigation. First claim struck out in September 2023 for repeated failure to provide adequate particulars despite multiple orders. Claimant brought second claim in June 2023 raising similar allegations plus claims of being made homeless and receiving wrong/broken deliveries. Respondent applied to strike out second claim.
Decision
Tribunal struck out portions of discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospect of success (homelessness allegations) or as vexatious abuse of process (police following before July 2022, delivery issues before March 2023). Refused to strike out unlawful deduction of wages claim and remaining discrimination claims, finding arguable issues on worker status and that claimant entitled to bring second claim for post-first-claim events. Some claims allowed to proceed despite serious procedural failures.
Practical note
Even after striking out a first claim for serious and inexcusable procedural failures, a tribunal may allow a second claim to proceed for events post-dating the first claim, particularly where the claimant is unrepresented and was given a further opportunity to particularise, though abuse of process principles may bar re-litigation of pre-first-claim matters.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3307211/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- wholesale
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Marketing representative
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No