The Claimant's race discrimination claim is dismissed on withdrawal. Approved by: EJ Maxwell Date: 13 February 2025 PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 1 of 1 August 2020 JUDGMENT[1]The respondents’ application to strike out the claimant's claim is granted. The manner in which the claimant has conducted these proceedings has been has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious and in the circumstances it is proportionate and in the interests of justice to strike out the claimant's claims in their entirety.[2]The respondent indicated that it intends to seek costs. I have issued an order in relation to that application. That will follow under separate cover. approved by me
REASONS
[1]These reasons relate to my decision dated 12 December 2025 (sent to the parties on 16 December 2025) to grant the respondent’s application dated the 22 July 2025 for the strike out of Ms Bi’s claim. It was listed for this hearing by Judge Swann at a Preliminary Hearing on 26 September 2025.[2]There were also applications for a deposit, witness order and disclosure which would have needed to be determined by me depending on the decision I reached in relation to strike out. The strike out application[3]The strike out application relates to the respondent relaying the sequence of events. It alleges amongst other matters that shortly after Ms Bi commenced employment with the respondent in September 2023, she started to make numerous (it says) unfounded allegations against members of staff and the respondent generally.[4]The respondent alleges they were followed by various referrals of employees and others within the respondent and the Trust of which it is part, to regulators and other statutory bodies including the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA), Local Authority (LADO), Walsall Safeguarding, Police, Department of Education, Ofsted and Information Commissioner’s Office. The respondent asserts that they were all investigated and dismissed. 1 / 14[5]The respondent further alleges that Ms Bi has made, and continues to make, defamatory comments and allegations concerning employees and trustees of the respondent. The respondent argues those allegations have extended to the individuals with care and conduct who have been reported within their lawyers, Browne Jacobson LLP, together with threats being made they will be reported to the relevant Regulator, and Ms Michelle Lockley (Assistant Headteacher and DSL) being reported to the Police for various alleged matters including fraud, perverting the course of justice.[6]As a result of what it describes as Ms Bi’s behaviour, on the 3 November 2025 the respondent asserts it obtained an interim injunction restraining Ms Bi from further referrals to external regulatory agencies under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and preventing her from engaging in language or behaviour towards any member of staff, employee director or trustee of the Respondent which is threatening abusive or intimidating. I was told a copy of that injunction has not as at the date of this hearing been produced by the Dudley County Court and so was not before me.[7]Whilst the respondent accepts Ms Bi agreed to the injunction (without admitting harassment) and to meet the Respondent’s costs of the proceedings (subject to assessment by the court) Ms Bi takes issue with this. Amongst other matters she asserts that due to intimidation by the respondent she withdrew a second claim she made.[8]The breach of injunction aside, Ms Bi is entitled to pursue any claims she has against the respondent provided she does so in in a reasonable way. This question for me is whether her conduct goes beyond that.[9]The principal arguments the respondent raises in its application are thus as follows:- 9.1. Ms Bi has made excessive and unreasonable requests for disclosure regarding documents wholly unrelated to matters in issue. The effect of which is that 9.1.1. a further Preliminary Hearing will now have to be held to determine these excessive requests. 9.1.2. witness evidence will have to be delayed until after the application for disclosure is heard. 9.2. Ms Bi’s correspondence with the respondent’s legal representatives generally has been excessive, including multiple detailed, repetitive, and at times incomprehensible emails on a daily basis which has served to disrupt the proper functioning of staff in their roles and greatly increase the respondents legal costs 9.3. Ms Michelle Lockley was unable to give evidence at the injunction hearing, because she was in fear due to Ms Bi’s conduct towards her. 9.4. Ms Bi’s behaviour towards the respondent’s legal representatives has been abusive and many times during hearings at both the Employment Tribunal and the County Court she has spoken over the Judge and had 2 / 14 to be reminded on several occasions not to do so or interrupt. On one occasion in the County Court, Ms Bi attempted to interrupt the Judge when he was giving his judgment.[10]Ms Anderson amplified those arguments orally before me asserting in essence that Ms Bi was constantly changing her position such that the respondent did not know the case it had to meet.[11]As a result the respondent argues there can no longer be a fair trial of this case and that no lesser sanction other than strike out could be imposed to ensure a fair trial.[12]For context there have been a number of hearings listed on this claim to date 12.1. 31 October 2024, 11:30:00 AM (postponed no judicial availability) 12.2. 14 November 2024, 10:00:00 AM (heard by EJ Wright) 12.3. 13 February 2025, 10:00:00 AM (heard by EJ Maxwell) 12.4. 26 September 2025, 10:30:00 AM (heard by EJ Swann - that was originally scheduled as a Dispute Resolution Appointment but was converted to a Preliminary Hearing following a second claim being issued by Ms Bi).[13]It is listed for a 10 day final hearing commencing on 20 April 2026. Ms Bi’s initial non-attendance today[14]At just before 8:00 am today and then again shortly after 8:00 am, the tribunal received emails from Ms Bi. The first indicated her daughter was ill, that she would be taking her to hospital, could not attend and had no objection to the hearing continuing in her absence on the basis that she had lodged written submissions.[15]Ms Bi set out her arguments in those submissions why the application should not be granted and stated she had no objections to the hearing proceeding today in her absence. Despite that at the start of the hearing, having identified the papers I should have I asked my clerk to contact Ms Bi to check if she wished to attend at 11:00 am when I intended to reconvene.[16]My clerk informed me that she had managed to make contact with Ms Bi who had told my clerk that she hoped to join by video later, dependent on when her daughter got out of the hospital and but that she would keep the tribunal updated on her progress.[17]On the basis there was no certainty that Miss Bi was going to join, and if so when, I decided to go ahead with the hearing and allow Miss Bi to join if necessary. When coming to that view I took into account that Miss Bi had indicated that she was happy for the hearing proceed on the basis of her written submissions together with a 24 page document and a further one page attachment (that were both attached to her emails this morning).[18]I also had before me:- 3 / 14 18.1. a bundle of 125 pages lodged by the respondent including submissions pages [2 to 15] 18.2. a further bundle from Ms Bi consequitively numbered to [313] (although that missed out page 312) 18.3. bundle of authorities [91] pages[19]Ms Bi joined at 12:00 noon at which point I summarised what had been said by Mrs Anderson before allowing her to make her own representations.[20]I indicated at the start of my oral decision that Ms Bi may want to make a note of what I was going to say. I communicated my decision at the outset and then proceeded to give reasons. As I did so Ms Bi sought to interrupt me. I first warned her before ultimately muting her. From the video footage it appeared she appeared to continue to talk and gesticulate. She then dropped off the call. I noted this but decided to continue.
The law
[21]The respondents’ application for strike out was premised on rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 :- “Striking out 38 (1) The Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party, strike out all or part of a claim, response or reply on any of the following grounds: (a) that it is scandalous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success. (b) that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant or the respondent (as the case may be) has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. (c) for non-compliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the Tribunal. (d) ... (e) that the Tribunal considers that it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of the claim, response or reply (or the part to be struck out).” The law is set out in Tesco 1 at paragraphs 33-44 so I do not repeat it here in 22. full save in the following limited respects.[23]The cases other than those I refer to above and below that were referenced by the respondent were :- 23.1. Ms A H vs. Ms Ishmail, Mr H Al-Megabry UKEAT/0021/16 1 Smith v Tesco Stores Ltd [2023] EAT 11 4 / 14 23.2. Mrs B Tree vs. South East Coastal Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0043/17 23.3. Rev Dr Hargreaves vs. Evolve Housing & Support and Mr McGrath EA-2022-000569[24]The Overriding Objective requires that “The parties and their representatives shall assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective and in particular shall co-operate generally with each other and with the Tribunal”. [my emphasis] So far as concerns me the test is threefold (per Bolch 2 approved in 25. Blockbuster 3):- 25.1. Is the threshold in r.38(1) (as set out above) met? 25.2. Is a fair trial possible? 25.3. Is strike out a proportionate response? and that staged approach is how I intend to approach matters. My determinations[26]Addressing the threefold test in turn. Unreasonable conduct[27]Miss Anderson that essentially the case that the Respondent had to face was constantly changing - there had been various applications to amend and essentially to use a phrase that a judge had in an earlier decision, the case was being “litigated by correspondence”.[28]To illustrate the point Miss Anderson argued that despite the claim having been commenced on 23 June 2024 (before Ms Bi was dismissed) that there were 4 additional documents lodged variously between 15 October 2024 and 9 February 2025 all of which could be viewed as applications to amend (although it should be noted that some were lodged after Ms Bi was dismissed on 15 October 2024).[29]The last of those applications was 4 days before the Preliminary Hearing heard by Judge Maxwell on 13 February. At that Preliminary Hearing Ms Bi sought to amend her claim. The amendment application was granted (at least in part) and the issues clarified. The issues were further clarified by Judge Maxwell in two orders that he sent out on 24 February and 9 April.[30]Following on from the hearing before Judge Maxwell in Miss Anderson’s view Ms Bi again sought to make three further applications to amend by two emails dated 4 March and a further email of 5 March. 2 Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140 EAT 3 Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] IRLR 630 CA 5 / 14[31]It was in response to those emails that Judge Maxwell (having permitted certain amendments) in an order sent to the parties on 9 April 2025 warned Ms Bi not to litigate by correspondence. It may be of assistance to set out what his order said (the emphasis is his):- “10. The Claimant's email of 5 March 2025 @ 06.58 is not appropriate. The Claimant cannot and must not seek to litigate this matter by way of correspondence. As set out above, the fact of the Respondent asserting facts with which the Claimant disagrees is unlikely to involve any unreasonable conduct. It is in the nature of Tribunal litigation that the parties disagree about what happened and each side believes it is the other that has or is behaving unreasonably. Orders have been made for the Claimant's claim to be determined at a final hearing if not resolved by agreement. The Claimant should focus on complying with those orders.11. The Claimant's application for strike out in her email of 5 March 2025 @ 11.25 is refused, as it has no reasonable prospect of success. The Respondent is entitled to contest her claims at a final hearing.12. The Claimant's email of 21 March 2025 is not appropriate. The Claimant must not write to the Tribunal as though an ongoing conversation about her claim is taking place. The sending of unnecessary correspondence to the Tribunal is likely to amount to unreasonable conduct and must cease.”[32]A second claim was issued by Ms Bi against the Respondent on 28 July. On 12 November Miss Bi indicated that she would be withdrawing that claim. Ms Bi sent further emails which in Miss Anderson’s view were essentially her seeking to amend yet further.[33]Again, it is helpful to set out what those emails said.[34]The first email timed at 13:35:32 on 12 November 2025, commenced thus:- “I am the claimant in the above matter. The respondents representatives have been copied into this matter. I am writing to request the tribunal to make some corrections to their records and also writing to withdraw the second claim , reference number 6019144/2025. which was joined with my first claim. I am not withdrawing my first claim. I am withdrawing the second claim to fully focus on the first claim. 1. This is an request to include matters arising straight after termination of my employment which were on the amended particulars of claim dated 09.02.25. The first preliminary hearing on 14 November 2024 was not conducted properly because respondents had requested for amended particulars of claim. … I assumed the matters were included and since the 6 / 14 respondents representative was an experienced solicitor and junior counsel who was constantly misleading the tribunal that such and such was new matter when it wasn't, I didn't want to undermine the judge who had worked so hard with my first statement. I only fully understood of TRA referral not being included when respondents refused to provide key documents as part of disclosure.”[35]Ms Bi then proceeded to refer at length to an issue concerning the TRA. She then concluded:- “12. Referring back to matters regarding TRA referral, it will be severely prejudicial if they are not included. As stated above, the amended particulars of claim did include the TRA referral at several points. … 13. I would be grateful if the above corrections could be made soon. …”[36]Amongst those various additional letters at 10:29 on 14 November 2025 Miss Bi sent a further email:- “Please accept my sincere apologies, my daughter was unwell when I had sent the below email. Please include the following to the below email to be corrected on tribunal files. I would be grateful if the below email ( date 12.12.25) could be read together with this one. In addition to TRA referral which was included at several paragraphs in the amended particulars that was sent to Tribunal prior to 13 February 2025, there was also details of a data policy clauses being amended in June 2024 prior to my dismissal in the amended particulars dated 10 February 2025. These are at paragraphs 70, 64, 66, 68 (c). The TRA referral paragraphs are at paragraphs 32, 33, 42, 48, 49 and 51. I am attaching the amended particulars for ease of reference.” A document titled “particulars of claim” was attached.[37]Miss Bi indicated that the issue from her perspective was that she had not received the documents in relation to the amendments that had been granted by Judge Maxwell on 24 February and 9 April and did not accept the letters were applications to amend. If that is so she provided no explanation why not, or why she had not actioned those matters earlier.[38]Irrespective of whether Miss Bi feels that they were applications to amendment or not, the issue is whether they could be interpreted as such. In my view they were.[39]One of the issues before me today was that it was clear that Ms Bi remains of the view that various matters that had previously been addressed should be revisited and she disputes various aspects of what the list of issues includes. 7 / 14 The formulation of the issues is fundamental to disclosure, which is currently an area of dispute between the parties. That being so until the issues have been formulated the parties cannot nor can they be expected to understand what disclosure is required. I will return to an example of that in a moment.[40]It may be helpful at this point to relay the chronological sequence including some of the issues concerning disclosure and other points.[41]Whilst Ms Bi argues she made an application for disclosure as long ago as May 2025 Judge Swan recorded this in the case management summary:- “(2) Immediately prior to the hearing commencing the claimant had submitted to the respondent (and copied to the tribunal), an updated request for disclosure of documents following the exchange of witness statements for the DRA. The claimant when addressing me on this maintained that it was crucial for her case proceeding that these documents be disclosed to her as she submits they challenge the credibility of the respondent witness evidence and the defences to the claims lodged. The respondent confirmed that the claimant had made a number of previous applications for disclosure which had been responded to as deemed appropriate. … (3) I made it clear that the respondent must be given the opportunity to reply to the aforesaid disclosure request. I also made it clear that it would be a matter for the tribunal to decide on receiving those comments how it then proposes to deal with any contested matters relating thereto, in what format, on what basis and when. I have therefore made orders below in respect of this application. …” and ordered as follows:- “5. The respondent will now have until the 17 October 2025 to consider and respond in writing (copied to the tribunal), to the claimant’s application for disclosure of documents submitted to the tribunal and the respondent today the 26 September 2025. The tribunal will then determine how any contested matters (if any) arising from the application will then be dealt with and in what format and when. “[42]To that end Ms Bi made a number of applications between the hearing on 26 September 2025 before Judge Swann and this hearing. Amongst them she asserted on 7 October:- “It was decided on the DRA held on 26 September 2026 by Judge Swann that preliminary hearing about disclosure will be held on 11 December 2025 and the strike out application will be on 17 February 2026. The date for 11 December was to determine why the respondents have still not provided 8 / 14 documents they are in possession of and if they are relevant to claim.”[43]That was clearly at odds with Judge’s Swann’s order which made the position clear at several points and left no room for doubt. On 8 October 2025 Ms Bi then sought “I am writing to request for the NoH for strike out to be conducted through written submissions on 11 December 2025 rather than a full day on video call. My 5 year old daughter has [medical condition redacted]. She is changing schools soon. It has been agreed that I will support her to settle at her new school as volunteer in the classroom from end of November until Christmas holidays. The school that has been offered is not a specialist school and due to the transfer taking place mid term, they will not have a TA present to meet her needs as such short notice. They will have one available for January term. … This is the reason why I have requested to make written submissions or the matter to be rescheduled for the new year.”[44]A few minutes later Ms Bi emailed again:- “Apologies, there appears to be a typing error below. I intend to state that I will submit my written submissions 3 days or a week prior to hearing if tribunal agrees to it. It's important to allow written submissions as I cannot be present for a whole day video conference on 11 December 2025 because I will be at my daughter's school. It is also very difficult to communicate on video conference with my laptop and mobile phone. The voices come late and I tend to speak. It then appears that I was talking over the person which is rude. Written submissions are ideal or a rescheduled date for face to face hearing.”[45]On 14 October she sought a witness order against Des Rickets who is the principal of Bishop Wilson Church of England Primary School.[46]Following this Ms Bi withdrew the second claim and the chain of correspondence I refer to starting at (32) above occurred.[47]Returning to the exchange of correspondence on 18 November 2025 Ms Bi again emailed “… I have an appointment at my daughter's school on 11 December 2025. Evidence of this will be submitted shortly. Hence, the full day hearing held on vexatious and scandalous allegations made by respondents representative about me rather than the merits of the case should be cancelled. …” 9 / 14[48]That was thus an application to postpone and gave a different reason to that previously for her inability to attend. It may be that the reason had changed but no evidence the meeting referred to has been provided from the school as promised.[49]In addition to those matters there were various other applications in relation to this hearing. They included applications:- 49.1. to list it in person, 49.2. to change the date submissions were to be lodged by and 49.3. regarding the date for the hearing being inconvenient to Ms Bi.[50]Various reasons were given by Ms Bi with regards to her inability to attend remotely or in person concerning practical difficulties logging on/with regards to accessing IT and phones etc., her availability and concerning her child attending medical appointments/Ms Bi having to attend school appointments.[51]On 4 December Judge Wedderspoon refused Ms Bi’s application to postpone the hearing listed on the 11 December 2025. Her reasons were:- “Employment Judge Swann made it very clear at the previous hearing that it was imperative to deal with the Respondent’s strike out application which has been outstanding for some time. Furthermore, no evidence has been produced by the Claimant to support her contention in the email dated the 18th November 2025 that there is a clash with her child’s assessment. At the hearing, and if still necessary, the Judge will deal with the Claimant’s application for a witness summons and, if minded, to consider any other outstanding applications.”[52]In response Ms Bi repeated the application:- “I am unable to attend the hearing of 11 December. The respondents were made aware of it since October 2025. Evidence was also given to them couple of weeks back. I have written several times to tribunal since October 2025 regarding the hearing. The disclosure is also pending since May 2025. I sent detailed emails and documents as to why the documents requested for are relevent.[sic.] Again the respondents have sent a bundle to me without including my documents. The tribunal has not dealt with disclosure issues and there according to the respondents even if I have sufficient evidence I cannot apply for strike out of response but they can apply based on false allegations they make . We require a face to face hearing and I also have an appointment at my daughter's school on 11 December. …”[53]To that email it appears Ms Bi attached an email she had sent to her daughter’s school stating:- 10 / 14 “Thank you for letting me know that experts for assessments will be at school on 11 December and my attendance is required. I will cancel other appointments and attend the meetings at school. It's noted that the I might be required from 26 November - 12 December and you would like me to attend the meeting on 11th December 2025 too.”[54]Ms Bi’s letter was thus equivocal whether her attendance was required and she provided as I say no evidence of the appointment from the school.[55]That correspondence was placed before Judge Gidney who addressed it as an application to postpone the hearing. He refused it on the basis that “…nothing has changed since EJ Wedderspoon rejected the Claimant’s application for a postponement of that hearing, following the observations made by EJ Swann. … The Claimant must produce evidence from her child’s school that the Claimant must attend at school on 11th December, and that event cannot be postponed before her application can be considered.”[56]That was emailed at just before 1:30 pm. Thirty minutes later from the email address it was sent to came a reply from Ms Bi “I have not received any correspondence at all from tribunal about any refusal from Judge Weatherspoon. I have only received this email and one from tribunal yesterday regarding the bundle. … I find communicating from a broken screen of a laptop very difficult for a video conference. There should be a face to face hearing. … The matters to be determined are crucial and cannot be discussed behind a broken laptop screen. They require face to face hearing at the tribunal. The [role of member of staff] at school works part time and is not at work today. I will need to wait until Monday to get any confirmation from school”.[57]Despite the contents of that email at just after 6 pm on 8 December Ms Bi emailed to say “I am able to confirm that I will attend the hearing held on 11 December through video conference.”[58]Those emails demonstrate in my view a refusal to accept Tribunal orders and to repeatedly argue in relation to directions is a repeated theme.[59]Further despite 59.1. the assurances to provide evidence of the meeting at the school it was not forthcoming; 11 / 14 59.2. having indicated that she would lodge submissions at least 3 days in advance as ordered by the Tribunal, she lodge a 24 page submissions document at 8.00am this morning; and 59.3. having indicated well in advance that she would be making an application to strike out the respondents’ case did not do so until she lodged her submissions this morning.[60]Miss Anderson accepts there no evidence in witness statements provided that suggests witnesses are not prepared to attend. Although, I accept the witnesses are concerned for their personal safety, (I am told Ms Bi has found their home addresses) and there is an impact on their mental health.[61]Instead, Miss Anderson focusses instead on Ms Bi’s failure to comply with Tribunal orders going forward and the impact that has. Her argument has 4 principal strands:- 61.1. non-compliance and adherence going forward with orders, 61.2. the extra Tribunal time and resources being devoted to repeated correspondence, 61.3. delay or at least the potential for it and 61.4. additional costs.[62]Those strands were reinforced today by the repeated interruptions and arguing by Ms Bi and despite having repeatedly asked Ms Bi not to do so she persisted. Whilst I accept she is a litigant in person and feels very strongly about her complaints, there are certain minimum requirements as to the way a hearing can be conducted. I have shown considerable allowances today.[63]Despite Miss Bi saying that she was happy for the hearing to proceed in her absence I made attempts to allow her to join if she wished.[64]When her child was in the background playing on an electronic device that was making noise, I asked her to stop the noise but did not object to her daughter being there (I did so on the basis that Miss Bi told me, and I accept, that her daughter was not well and it was therefore, important for Miss Bi to be able to care for her).[65]Those matters aside Miss Bi made it clear that she was happy for the hearing to go ahead in her absence having made submissions. The steps I have taken today to allow her to engage go well beyond that.[66]With regards to the four strands themselves, the issue of costs can be addressed by other means. The other strands in my view and in particular the failure and the risk of the failure to adhere to tribunal orders or directions going forward cannot. I am not satisfied that Miss Bi will do so.[67]Her behaviour today even whilst I have been giving judgment demonstrates that.[68]It is further demonstrated by her previous conduct and in her submissions, for instance, despite an assurance with her submissions that the issues were 12 / 14 agreed before me she sought to argue that an issue concerning a Teacher Regulation Agency (TRA) referral remained a live one.[69]There were further examples during the hearing. She sought to raise an issue concerning being treated differently. When I asked how that related to one of the issues identified for determination at trial having referred me to one of the issues, when I drilled down into this with her she accepted it was not.[70]That exchange occurred immediately before I asked her to confirm how I could be satisfied that she would comply with tribunal orders and directions going forward. Having been asked the question she responded saying, “there was another problem here that the Respondent has sneakily got away with the Data Policy” and then went on to raise a Data Policy issue asserting that was not within the issues either.[71]When I asked her if there was anything she wished to add she raised the Respondent’s failure to include her documents in the bundle. I explained to Miss Bi how a bundle should be prepared and what it should include. That aside I raised that issue to highlight that unless the issues are fixed, there will inevitably be issues relating to disclosure and the relevance of documents.[72]The failures to comply with time limits, making applications for postponement giving different reasons for them without providing supporting evidence, repeatedly sending emails within a few minutes of each other at some points changing the basis of what was being sought, repeatedly making applications seeking to go behind orders where no good grounds were provided and/or where there is no material change in circumstances and making applications at the last minute all are repeated themes.[73]Those matters in my view demonstrate a refusal to accept and comply with Tribunal orders and/or to conduct the litigation in a reasonable way.[74]The various applications to amend and for disclosure demonstrate the constant changing nature of the case that Ms Bi seeks to bring and despite the earlier warning from the tribunal that Ms Bi continues to litigate the claim by correspondence.[75]In my view those matters above and those I refer to below collectively demonstrate unreasonable conduct by Ms Bi. Is a fair trial possible?[76]As to the question whether a fair trial is possible and I consider that it is not. Miss Bi has repeatedly demonstrated that she is not prepared to comply with and seeks to go behind Tribunal orders and directions. Even if her attempts to go beyond the issues and raise new or additional matters were not applications to amend as such unless the issues are properly identified disclosure cannot be completed and the bundle agreed (as is demonstrated by the disputes concerning it). As a result the trial cannot properly be prepared and prejudice will be caused. 13 / 14[77]Ms Bi repeatedly re-raising matters that have been determined uses up precious tribunal hearing and other time, causes delay, puts in jeopardy the trial and adds to the costs.[78]I do not accept that Ms Bi will comply with orders going forward. Her conduct previously, immediately prior to today and at the hearing today ably demonstrates that. Her failure to respond to what was a direct question seeking her assurance she would do so and her response which suggested she would do the opposite reinforces that. Is a lesser sanction available[79]I have considered issuing an Unless Order(s). The difficulty with an unless order is that normally gives rise to a binary choice; has Ms Bi complied or not. In this case or subtle questions of compliance arise and thus an Unless Order would not in my view assist. Similarly, in relation to a strike out warning I do not consider bearing in mind what I say above, that that would achieve the objective. Like an unless order all that will potentially do is to generate yet further litigation by correspondence as to whether compliance has taken place.[80]A unusual alternative, prohibiting Ms Bi from representing herself at the Tribunal in practical terms is impossible to achieve in my view in this case given the disputes over basic concerns such as the issues and bundle. Again, it would not allow a fair trial to take place.[81]Whilst, therefore, strike out is draconian sanction in my view no lesser available sanction is proportionate in these circumstances and accordingly the claim shall be struck out. approved by me
The law
[1]The claimant’s application that I recuse myself is refused. Directions will follow.
The law
[1]This hearing stems from my judgment striking out Ms Bi’s claim at a hearing on 11 December 2025. This hearing was originally listed to hear the respondent’s costs application. Amongst other matters Ms Bi has made applications that I reconsider recuse myself and has also lodged an appeal against that judgment. This hearing was therefore converted to address the recusal issue. I issued an order on 30 January that refers. That order gave directions attempting to address the various problems that have arisen in the past as to the late provision of documents.[2]On Friday 27 February (the working day before the hearing) Ms Bi sought that the hearing be conducted by a full panel or laypersons because she objected to me sitting alone. In my absence that was referred to the Regional Judge who directed a response be sent :- “… Panel composition in the Employment Tribunals is dealt with in accordance with Presidential Guidance – see here. As Employment Judge Perry is the judge dealing with this case and has already determined the appropriate panel for Monday’s hearing, he will need to consider any further representations about this that are raised. He is not available today. The hearing will go ahead on Monday as planned therefore and at that stage any further applications relating to 1 / 10 panel composition can be addressed. The claimant is respectfully encouraged to seek support in relation to her mental health from her GP or NHS 111 as necessary.”[3]Ms Bi arrived at the Tribunal at 10:05; after the intended start time. Prior to the hearing starting Ms Bi repeated her objections to my sitting alone to my clerk. I asked him to explain briefly that I would deal with that at the outset. That caused a further delay.[4]At the outset Ms Bi sought to suggest as a result that I had “selected” the panel. I explained to her that as this was a recusal application that it had to be heard by the same tribunal that heard the original hearing. That is to say me sitting alone. that the hearing be heard as a sit alone was as I understand it a decision of Judge Swann (see the reasons I gave for striking out the claim.[5]Ms Bi responded stating that following a google search that she understood that was a matter for the presiding Judge. I informed her that 5.1. there was no such thing as a “presiding judge” in the tribunal. 5.2. There are Regional Judges, the President and the senior President. But not a presiding judge as such. 5.3. The term “presiding judge” in England and Wales is usually for example the High Court Judge responsible for a crown/county court circuit.[6]I suggested if she could refer me to a case that supported her assertion I would review it. She could not.[7]I then explained that given she was seeking I recuse myself from further involvement it had to be me that took that decision but if she was dissatisfied with it the safeguard was that she could appeal that decision also. She did not persist in her objections at that time. She did raise the issue again later that morning. I then again addressed it as before.
THE HEARING
[8]One of the respondent’s complaints at the hearing in December was that the claimant has repeatedly sent documents late so that the respondent did not have time to read them or take instructions. A secondary effect of such examples is that the documents are not sent within a bundle and thus issues arise around confusion and delays identifying the document being referred to rather than being able to turn up a page. I thus sought to prevent this by the directions I gave in my order of 20 January.[9]It transpired Ms Bi had not downloaded the bundle she had been sent by the respondent. I thus gave her details how she could obtain the code for the public Wi-Fi in the building so she could download it.[10]Contrary to my directions Ms Bi sent a large numbers of documents as attachments last week that did not form part of the bundle I had directed be prepared. 2 / 10[11]I had to spend the best part of an hour of the three originally allocated to identifying the documents that should have been before me. That contributed, to but was not the principal reason why this hearing substantially overran.[12]The various documents i should have had before me were:- 12.1. the bundle for this hearing of 128 pages 12.2. two emails to members of Ms Anderson’s firm Mr Medd and Mr Sutherland and a response dated 12.2.1. Tuesday, 14 October 2025 at 13:23 12.2.2. Thursday, 23 October 2025 at 11:03 12.2.3. Friday, 24 October 2025 at 11:36 12.3. an email dated 31 October 2018 15:44 referencing Judge Gaskell 12.4. an email dated 11 January 2018 08:35 referencing Judge Perry 12.5. a document being Ms Bi’s responses to the respondent’s costs application sent to the Tribunal at 10:36 on 23 February that ran to 38 pages which together with its 40 or so attachments that were spread over 4 emails (those attachments themselves ran to just under 150 pages) 12.6. a “note regarding the recusal hearing” sent the Tribunal this morning at 08:46 that was dated yesterday (1 March) running to 23 pages.[13]The “recusal note” referred to a number of “exhibits”. I clarified that exhibits 2- 12 were items 2-12 in the bundle index and exhibit 21 had been re-numbered as item 13. Given the lateness of the hour that was sent Ms Anderon had not seen that prior to attending the Tribunal hearing. I indicated I would give Ms Anderson time if required for her to read it but directed Ms Bi to take me to any documents she wished to refer me to so I could be clear which was being referred to and where.[14]In the end Ms Bi did not refer me to the response to the costs application. That aside if there were issues concerning recusal in that application they should have been mentioned in the recusal application which I had directed she lodge by 6 February.[15]Having clarified those issues it was just after 12:15 when I started hearing Ms Bi’s application. I took a lunch later than normal (to which no one objected) having first tried to clarify the point I refer to below. Ms Bi concluded her submissions at just before 4:00 pm.[16]By 1:30 it had become clear that Ms Bi was substantively expanding on what she had said in her 23 page “recusal note” by rehearsing the evidence in relation to the substance of the claim rather than the recusal issue. I tried to explain to her on several occasions that I had not determined the claim based on the substantive merits referring her to the judgment. I was by then concerned as the hearing had already over-run that it would not be concluded by the end of the day and the points she was making were merely repeats of 3 / 10 the issues I identify below under “I did not hear evidence” and “I formed views on the substance without hearing the evidence”.[17]Having clarified the point it transpired that on her reading my references to what the respondent “alleged” in for examples paragraphs 3 & 4 of the reasons were determinations.[18]Given my concerns that the hearing would not be concluded (at that point she had only got to paragraph 6 and page 3) and this did not seem proportionate I explained that time did not allow us to rehearse the evidence in relation to all those matters and that was not what the recusal application (as opposed to any appeal) related to. I therefore summarised the points she had raised so far, asked her to identify any additional heads and to give me examples for those heads in turn when she returned from lunch. I then adjourned.[19]Following the lunch adjournment Ms Bi asked for more time which was granted. Despite my request on the resumption Ms Bi continued as before and so I again had to explain the point to her. She continued adding several additional heads.[20]There are two additional points I need to record with regards to the conduct of the hearing 20.1. at various points during the hearing I insisted Ms Bi pause as she appeared to be becoming upset or as it transpired needed to use her inhaler 20.2. towards the end of the day Ms Bi complained that Ms Anderson had referenced her “monopolising” the previous hearing in the respondent’s reply to the recusal application (paragraph 5) and that she considered that inappropriate. I explained if that was Ms Anderson’s view, she was entitled to it, just as Ms Bi was entitled to argue otherwise. Shortly afterwards Ms Bi accused Ms Anderson of what equated to misleading the Tribunal. I attempted to interrupt to explain the seriousness of that allegation to Ms Bi but Ms Bi continued. I was eventually able to explain to her that was a professional misconduct issue, why that was serious and that if she did not prove that allegation given its seriousness the respondent may raise that on the issue of weight or other matters, if appropriate. Shortly afterwards, in my view the parties started bickering. I had to warn them about that. APPLICATION
the hearing
[21]I mistakenly understood that I had directed that this hearing would consider both the recusal and reconsideration applications. Having checked I noted the order solely referred to hearing the recusal application so I proceeded to only address that issue. I return to the “way forward” below.[22]Having heard at length from the claimant (see 15 above) I eventually identified some nine heads which I will deal with in turn. 4 / 10 I did not allow Ms Bi to make representations[23]In addition to having read Ms Bi’s lengthy submissions I also heard from her at length during the last hearing. The recording of the last hearing is available if the exact length of the representations Ms Bi made remain in dispute. As I say in the reasons Ms Bi joined the hearing on 11 December shortly before 12:00. I summarised the submissions Ms Anderson had made so she could respond to them and almost all of the remaining time prior to breaking for lunch (again late) was spent hearing from Ms Bi.[24]With regards to the assertion she was prevented from making representations, during the hearing today Ms Bi complained that she was being stopped every time she wanted to input. What it transpired she meant by that was that when something was said she immediately wished to respond to it. I explained on several occasions that I had to ensure the hearing progressed in a fair and non chaotic way and allowing her to respond to every point was at odds with that and instead she was to make a note (as she was doing) and address them at a convenient point.[25]In addition to repeatedly interrupting me, Ms Bi repeatedly put her hand up, shook her head as I was talking and on one occasion rolled her eyes. I explained that was distracting, did not allow the hearing to proceed smoothly and asked her to desist.[26]Whilst I do not adopt Ms Anderson’s view in its entirety she said this of Ms Bi’s participation during the hearing last December in the Respondent’s Reply To Claimant’s Application For Recusal, Reconsideration And Stay Of Costs Hearing:- “5. … She took a full role in the hearing; indeed, it could be suggested that she monopolised the hearing, talking over EJ Perry on many occasions despite being asked not to many times. The Claimant continued to do this even during judgment and had to be muted so that the hearing could continue.” I did not hear evidence I formed views on the substance without hearing the evidence I formed a view without looking at documents
Hearing:-
[27]I deal with these three heads of unfairness together. All three were based on Ms Bi’s assertion that I formed a view on the merits of the case. I tried to understand from her the basis for that taking Ms Bi repeatedly to my reasons which stated it was based on the manner in which she had conducted the proceedings that i reached the view I did and I had formed that view based on the contents f the Tribunal’s file. Despite that she persisted in her view. As i say above I sought to clarify based on her assertions at paragraph 3 of her note of 1 March for the recusal hearing which referred to paragraphs 3 & 4 of the reasons what decisions she was referencing. She referenced the contents of those paragraphs as me making decisions. I asked her given I made clear I had there relayed the basis of the application and each of the paragraphs were 5 / 10 prefaced with the respondent “alleged” (or similar) how that was so. She persisted with that view. My oral and written decisions didn’t match[28]Ms Bi argued that this issue arose because of the delay sending the reasons out. Ms Bi accepted during the hearing that she disconnected while the decision was being given. Whilst that means she was unable to comment on the part of the decision she missed that that does not account for the remainder.[29]I explained to Ms Bi that the written and oral decisions do not need to accord verbatim and when giving an oral decision, matters already discussed during the hearing would not ordinarily be repeated such as the background and the law. Thus, paragraphs 1 - 19 set out the background, law and other matters discussed during the hearing. I further explained that when giving the decision I did not recite the quotes from the various emails, instead merely referencing them. So for instance in paragraph 31 I preface the quote stating “It may be of assistance to set out what his order said (the emphasis is his)”. Similarly at paragraph 33 etc. Further the oral decision would be corrected for sense and grammar.[30]It became clear that was not Ms Bi’s point. She appeared to argue that during the oral reasons I had formed a view on the merits whereas in my written decision I formed a view based on the way she had conducted the proceedings.[31]I explained that in my view the substance of the decision did marry and again the hearing had been recorded so could be checked.[32]That aside I checked Ms Anderson’s recollection explaining to Ms Bi that if Ms Anderson also felt the decisions had diverged that might be an appeal point and so there would be good reasons now on her client’s part (if so) for that for her to raise that now. She indicated that the written reasons did reflect the oral decision. I determined the witnesses were scared for their personal safety without hearing evidence[33]Whilst I accept I referenced that in my decision at paragraph 60, on a fair reading of the decision what I was recording was that that issue was not being pursued by Ms Anderson and instead the argument she was raising was based on the four strands I set out at paragraph 61. Preconceived views[34]As I go on to say below (see “Other”) I cannot recall having any previous dealings with Ms Bi. No evidential basis has been identified for the assertion that I did or that I determined the application based on a preconceived view. As I explained today the fact I came to different view to that Ms Bi came to is not a ground for recusal. 6 / 10 I called Ms Bi a liar during the hearing on 11 December[35]When I drilled down into this Ms Bi accepted I had not used the word liar and instead had said “yeah, yeah, yeah” and had then said that her daughter was fine (when Ms Bi had indicated otherwise). I do not accept either was so. Again the hearing was recorded. Other[36]In addition Ms Bi raised an issue concerning two emails she sent to the tribunal that she dated to 2017 and 2018. The 2017 reference appears to be incorrect as the two emails are both dated 2018. The one referencing my name is dated 11 January 2018 08:35 and other to Judge Gaskell timed at 31 October 2018 15:44. They reference different three different case numbers. Ms Bi did not expand on the relevance of the Judge Gaskell email.[37]Having mentioned those emails at the outset Ms Bi did not elaborate on them orally. In her 23-page note dated 1 March for the hearing she said this:- “[paragraph 4 page 1 (not numbered)] …I did not disclose earlier that in October 2017, Judge Perry sat in a preliminary hearing for a case against Waverly Foundation Ltd (a case about staff address and full contact details displayed on sims computer system accessible to staff and students was raised be me with leadership as safeguarding issue. This resulted in my dismissal. I had found work at another school but continued with ET claim in 2017.) Judge Perry was judge conducting the preliminary hearing whereby he supported the respondent and in front of me stated to barrister Hardy that he wants them to submit strike out claim which he will grant very quickly. He repeatedly encouraged them in that way several times and was very rude to me throughout the hearing. I had complained about his bias conduct. In that time, we settled claim as the respondent (Waverley Foundations Ltd) were inspected by Ofsted and found to be in breach of safeguarding provisions. The respondents asked my then employer Ark Boulton Academy to victimise me as soon as the case was settled. I had written to Judge Perry apologising for complaining about him and that I might return with another case. I also explained my situation that this was not desirable but was being done without choice. Two emails are attached. Judge Perry had acted with closed minds then too and ignored key evidence and fully supported the respondents. There is a pattern of bias and close minded behaviour towards me from Judge Perry that has been repeated in the hearing of 11 December 2025. … 7. … I have come across Judge Perry previously in 2017 where he encouraged Counsel Hardy to make a strike out application and he persistently stated, I will support the 7 / 10 application if you make a strike out, it will be granted. I had to complain at an informal level at that time too. My eyesight isn’t great but I believe it’s the same Judge Perry. He has supported the respondents in this case because Judge Mark Aspinall is the respondents chair of trust and they are colleagues and friends. He has also behaved with closed minds in a previous matter in 2017 and his conduct was challenged with a complaint as stated above. There is a pattern of bias behaviour towards me by Judge Perry.”[38]Whilst I cannot say for definite that I have never come across Judge Aspinall (if indeed he is a judge) I am not familiar with him. We are certainly not friends. Accordingly, I do not know the basis for that assertion. So far as I recall it was not raised at the hearing in December. As I indicate in the order of 30 January at paragraph 8, Ms Bi has previously confused me with another Judge Perry. I do not intend to speculate on how she identified the names she gave for him or the business address she alleged he had.[39]As to the alleged complaint, Ms Bi did not raise that at the last hearing or last week in the mail addressed by Judge Jones. She accepted before me today that she thought she had made a complaint but could not find it and she could not be sure that the complaint was about me. I have no recall of a complaint being made about me by her. That appears to be supported by her reference to the complaint being an informal one. As she did not pursue this point orally I did not clarify what she meant by that. I can say if she had mentioned having made a complaint about me or I was aware she had made one on 11 December I would not have conducted the December hearing.[40]Absent a copy of the complaint, what that related to or its context that does not take the matter any further and no basis has been given for that assertion.[41]I have considered the recusal note lodged by Ms Bi. The matters raised there that do not appear above, are as follows:- 41.1. (paragraph 8) her letter to the tribunal in March 2025 seeking the respondent’s response be struck out because of its behaviour was dismissed without looking at the evidence. Ms Bi accuses the Tribunal of bias as a result. I am not clear how that has any relevance as she does say that I took that decision or that is a complaint a decision by me. 41.2. (paragraph 10) my commenting that she had no rights at all as a teacher to make external referrals and that I humiliated her and made derogatory comments which made her feel very low in self-esteem. That is not my recollection of that exchange. I address what was my recollection of what was discussed at paragraphs 4 - 6 of the reasons. 41.3. (at various points) the respondent’s failure to disclose documents, witness statements and providing false information. The hearing before me was listed to address the respondent’s struck out application not an equivalent application by Ms Bi. The reasons summarise the issues the 8 / 10 respondent raises with regard to disclosure at 9.1 and the issues that gives rise to at 38 - 42, 52, 71, 74 & 76. As I result I do not propose to repeat them here. 41.4. (paragraph 36) I do not accept I became angry at any point during the hearing on 11 December and banged my head on the table as a result as alleged. Ms Bi’s other assertions in that paragraph are inconsistent with the attempts I made to allow her to participate in the hearing despite her indication she was happy to rely on her written submissions. 41.5. (paragraph 47) I do not accept I shouted at Ms Bi stating ‘could you take mummy’s laptop away’ MY CONCLUSIONS[42]The test for bias was set out by Lord Hope of Craighead in Porter v Magill [2002] UKHL 67:- 'The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.' The fair-minded observer is to be treated as being informed of all the relevant circumstances, is not complacent but is also not unduly sensitive or suspicious.[43]Whilst I accept that Ms Bi disagrees with my decision that does not lead to a conclusion of bias. Adopting the stance I am required to adopt following Porter I have concluded, the fair-minded and informed observer, would not conclude that there was a real possibility that I was biased. I therefore refuse the request to recuse myself. WAY FORWARD[44]I indicated to the parties I would send this decision within the next few weeks depending on my diary but as I will not be sitting here going forward whatever the decision I make it will not be me that addresses the reconsideration application or costs. I thus sought to clarify the approach going forward so I (or another judge) could issue directions accordingly.[45]I explained to Ms Bi the fundamental difference between an appeal (where one or more parties take issue with the outcome reached based on a procedural or substantive flaw) and a reconsideration (which normally deals with an application to reconsider the decision in the light of matters not referred to when the decision was reached as a result of those matters not being available at the time or where they were not considered to be relevant). I explained the latter would normally require an explanation why those matters were not referred to originally.[46]Whilst Ms Bi did comply with my order setting out the basis for her reconsideration application(s) by 6 February as directed, it appears that she 9 / 10 alleges yet further evidence has come to light that she wishes to rely upon. I reminded her that the time limit in this case is fourteen days after the reasons were sent to her and so that an additional basis would appear to be out of time and so if she intends to apply she should do so quickly giving an explanation why that is late.[47]That aside both parties agreed that the reconsideration application could not be dealt with unless and until the recusal application had been addressed by me and any costs application would necessarily have to await the decision on the reconsideration application.[48]It was also common ground that the issues in the reconsideration were not matters that could be addressed directly within the appeal thus superseding the need for the reconsideration and nor was it desirable to do so. approved by me Employment Judge Perry Dated: 5 March 2026 All judgments (apart from those under rule 52) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. The Employment Tribunal has no power to refuse to place a judgment or reasons on the online register, or to remove a judgment or reasons from the register once they have been placed there. If you consider that these documents should be anonymised in any way prior to publication, you will need to apply to the Employment Tribunal for an order to that effect under Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Such an application would need to be copied to all other parties for comment. 10 / 10
Hearing:-
[1]As I indicated at the conclusion of the recusal hearing I will be playing no further part in the claim because I will no longer be sitting as a salaried judge in the Employment Tribunal. I made plain at the recusal hearing and repeated in the reasons for the recusal decision why the recusal hearing would address recusal only (see (22) and (44-48)) and why I would not be addressinga. the reconsideration application in relation to the decision to strike out andb. the respondent’s costs application. I have thus addressed how those remaining applications will need to be addressed at (7) below.[2]Notwithstanding what I say at (1) it appears on the basis the claimant seeks a reconsideration that she believes that I have addressed those points and/or is seeking a reconsideration of the recusal. Given the matters raised in paragraph 2 of the application to amend the reconsideration application I have therefore treated that as an application to reconsider the recusal decision.[3]For the reasons given above any application that I reconsider the decision to recuse myself is redundant and unnecessary. That aside I address it for the reasons below.[4]Much of the reconsideration application is a challenge to the original decision and is in any event not relevant to the recusal application. As to the other points raised in the reconsideration application they are appeal points on the basis that either they were raised or insofar as they were not raised at the recusal application, they should have been and the application does not address why they were not.[5]As to the entirely new matters that relate to the conduct of the recusal hearing, I do not propose to engage with them other than to say they are not accepted. 1 / 2 Claim Number 1306130/2024[6]Nor does a reconsideration appear to be an appropriate way to challenge that decision. As the claimant disagrees with the recusal decision, the appropriate mechanism is to appeal, not to reconsider it. In the alternative, the argument becomes circular.[7]The file shall be passed to Regional Employment Judge Jones to consider if a judge should be appointed to hear the remaining applications (see (1) (a) & (b) above); and if so, whom and what directions are required. approved by me