Tribunal Dismisses Claim as Abuse of Process: Szucs v Greensquareaccord Ltd
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a claim against Greensquareaccord Ltd, finding it to be an abuse of process because the claimant should have amended his initial claim.
• public
Employment Tribunal Upholds Strike-Out in Szucs v Greensquareaccord Ltd
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled in the case of Mr Andras Szucs v Greensquareaccord Ltd [2025] EAT 110, upholding the Employment Tribunal's decision to strike out Mr Szucs' second claim as an abuse of process. The EAT found that the original tribunal did not err in law when applying the principle established in Henderson v Henderson.
Background of the Case
Mr Szucs, formerly employed by Greensquareaccord Ltd, brought two separate claims before the Employment Tribunal. The first claim concerned his dismissal in April 2020, which was heard in July 2022. The second claim related to unsuccessful job applications he made to the respondent, which he learned about in May 2022. This second claim was lodged in September 2022.
Abuse of Process Ruling
The Employment Tribunal struck out the second claim, arguing that it should have been brought as an amendment to the first claim. The EAT agreed, stating that Mr Szucs was aware of the basis for the second claim two months before the final hearing of the first claim. Judge Stout, presiding over the EAT hearing on 17 July 2025, concluded that the Employment Tribunal was within its rights to determine the second claim as an abuse of process. The ability of Mr Szucs to have amended the first claim was a key point.
Grounds of Appeal Dismissed
Mr Szucs appealed the strike-out, arguing that an application to amend the first claim might have been refused, and that there was insufficient time to incorporate the new claims without disrupting the existing hearing schedule. He also contended that the claims were fact-sensitive discrimination claims that deserved adjudication on their merits.
The EAT dismissed these grounds of appeal, stating that the possibility of an unsuccessful amendment application did not justify failing to make the application in the first place. The EAT also noted the need for finality in litigation and the importance of addressing matters in a single hearing to conserve resources.
Key Legal Principles
The EAT reiterated the principles of Henderson v Henderson, which prevents parties from raising matters in subsequent proceedings that could and should have been raised in earlier ones. The ruling emphasised the importance of considering whether bringing proceedings constitutes an abuse of process, taking into account factors such as whether the issue could have been discovered and raised previously, and whether the later action involves unjust harassment or oppression.
Outcome
Ultimately, the EAT dismissed Mr Szucs' appeal, upholding the original decision to strike out the second claim as an abuse of process.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Andras Szucs v GreenSquareAccord Ltd [2025] EAT 110
