Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Strike Out of Claim Due to Claimant's Misconduct
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal, upholding the strike out of a claim due to the claimant's misconduct.
• public
Tribunal's Decision Upheld
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an employment tribunal was correct to strike out a claimant's case. The EAT found that the claimant had deliberately misled both the tribunal and the respondent regarding supposed medical reasons for failing to comply with tribunal orders and attend hearings.
Claimant's Actions and Tribunal's Findings
The claimant, Mr. Tedd, who was employed by Surrey County Council on a fixed-term contract, resigned in January 2021 and subsequently brought a claim for constructive dismissal and disability discrimination. Throughout the pre-hearing processes, the claimant made several requests for extensions and modifications, citing health issues. The employment tribunal noted inconsistencies in the claimant's explanations, particularly concerning an alleged endocrinologist appointment on the day of a preliminary hearing. The tribunal found no evidence to support this claim and concluded that the claimant had been untruthful.
Specifically, the tribunal found that the claimant's explanations for not complying with orders to provide further particulars of his claim were unsatisfactory and contradictory. He was also found to have deliberately misled the tribunal regarding his ability to attend the hearing on 30 May 2023. The EAT agreed with the tribunal's assessment that this conduct demonstrated intentional and contumelious default, making it unfair and unjust to allow the claim to proceed.
Legal Principles and Appeal Outcome
The claimant appealed, arguing that the employment tribunal failed to apply a two-stage test, did not properly consider its discretionary powers, and overlooked substantial compliance with orders. However, the EAT determined that the employment tribunal had correctly applied the two-stage test, considering both the threshold for striking out a claim and the subsequent discretionary decision. The tribunal was entitled to exercise its discretion based on the claimant's intentional and contumelious behaviour, which included misleading the tribunal.
The EAT also addressed the claimant's argument regarding late compliance with orders. While acknowledging partial compliance, the tribunal was entitled to consider this a matter to which little or no weight should be attached, given the seriousness of the claimant's misconduct. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.
Read the entire judgment here: Mr R Tedd v Surrey County Council EAT 66
