Mr R Soares v National Counties Building Society: 2300936/2022
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2300936/2022
Between
Mr R SoaresClaimantNational Counties Building SocietyRespondent
Before
Employment Judge AbbottIn person for claimantMr Spencer Keen (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 3 August 2023
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out under Rule 37.
REASONS
[1]The claimant brought a claim against the respondent for direct race discrimination. He is a Brazilian national. He says he applied to the respondent for the role of SharePoint Developer, was interviewed for the position, but was not appointed. The claimant says his non-appointment was direct race discrimination particularly because his accent was criticised and he was accused of being abrupt.[2]The respondent denies discrimination. It says that the claimant was not appointed because he responded to questions in an abrupt, defensive, almost aggressive way. In short, he failed to demonstrate the collaborative skills they required.[3]The case came before me today to determine two strike-out applications, one made by the respondent and one made by the claimant, as directed by EJ Leith at a preliminary hearing that took place on 21 July 2023.
The law
[4]Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may strike out all or part of a claim or response 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) that it has not been actively pursued;(e) that the Tribunal considers that it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of the claim or response (or the part to be struck out).[5]The power may only be exercised if the claimant has been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations, either in writing or, if requested by the claimant, at a hearing (Rule 37(2)).[6]The respondent advanced its application on the basis of each of grounds (a), (b) and (e) above, but I can focus on (b). The claimant’s application, as it is summarised by EJ Leith in paragraph 2.2 of his Case Management Order, is also based on ground (b).[7]Rule 37(1)(b) requires the Tribunal to consider whether the proceedings have been conducted “in a way which amounts to an abuse of the tribunal’s process” (Bennett v Southwark LBC [2002] IRLR 407 (CA), para 26). If that threshold is met, the Tribunal must consider whether it is proportionate to strike out the claim.[8]The meaning of the term “scandalous” was discussed in Bennett. Sedley LJ stated at paragraph 32 of his judgment: “Without seeking to be prescriptive, the word 'scandalous' in its present context seems to me to embrace two somewhat narrower meanings: one is the misuse of the privilege of legal process in order to vilify others; the other is giving gratuitous insult to the court in the course of such process. Each meaning has lexicographical and legal support, the first in the principal OED definitions of 'scandal' and 'scandalous', which have to do with harm and discredit; the second in 'scandalising the court', a historical form of contempt; and both in Daniel's entry in Byrne's Dictionary of English Law cited in his judgment by Ward LJ. These considerations are not of course exhaustive, but they are enough to make it plain that 'scandalous' in the rule is not a synonym for 'shocking'. It is a word, like its sibling 'frivolous', with unfortunate colloquial overtones which distract from its legal purpose: see the remarks of Lord Bingham CJ in R v Mildenhall Magistrates Court, ex parte Forest Heath DC (The Times, 16 May 1997).”[9]Consideration of whether a fair trial is still possible is an important factor under Rule 37(1)(b) even though Rule 37(1)(e) provides that that factor can also be considered on its own (see De Keyser Ltd v Wilson [2001] IRLR 324 (EAT)). Conduct of the hearing[10]The hearing took place by video on the CVP platform. The parties were present promptly and we began shortly after 10am. The claimant appeared representing himself. The respondent was represented by counsel, Mr Keen (who had appeared at the hearing before EJ Leith), accompanied by 4 members of staff from the respondent.[11]After introductions, I gave a series of standard warnings that I typically give at the beginning of a hearing. Those included noting that this was a formal Tribunal hearing and the parties should treat it as such at all times, and a warning not to record the hearing as to do so is a criminal offence (reiterating a warning that appears on screen when logging into CVP). I also asked parties to remain on mute when not speaking to avoid background noise.[12]I then began to explain that the purpose of the hearing was to determine the two strike-out applications and indicated that I had received a large collection of materials across multiple PDF files, that I had read a good deal of that and felt I had a good grasp of the issues, but would be assisted if I could be directed during submissions to the written materials regarded as relevant. At that point, the claimant interrupted. He indicated he had no submissions to make. He expressed the view that he had been ignored by this Tribunal, and that he had raised that issue with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in his own country. He alleged that Mr Keen had been laughing at him in the previous hearing, and referred to the respondent as being corrupt and racist. He was particularly exercised by the failure of the respondent to produce a copy of a recording of his interview as ordered by the Tribunal. He alleged that the respondent had produced fraudulent documents and that it was the fault of this Tribunal that this had been permitted. He suggested that this would become a diplomatic issue and end up in the courts in Strasbourg. He insisted that the hearing should focus on the “crimes” committed by the respondent.[13]At this point I sought to encourage the claimant to listen to the submissions of Mr Keen, and explained that he would then have the opportunity to put across his point of view. The claimant continued to express that he felt that the whole situation was the fault of the Tribunal, in failing to protect citizens from crimes. He did not want “small talk”. He referred again to the delay of 4 months in dealing with his disclosure request, and to the respondent’s alleged fraudulent documents. He also referred to his complaints being ignored and to cases he has pending at the Court of Appeal. As regards his swearing in correspondence, he stated that this was “your fault, the fault of this Court”. He also referred to the Tribunal as a “criminal organisation, not a court”.[14]The claimant stopped speaking at this point. I explained that I would hear Mr Keen’s submissions first, and that the claimant would then have an opportunity to respond. Following a short explanation of the position in relation to the claimant’s second claim (see further below) Mr Keen began his submissions.[15]Before Mr Keen had managed to complete his introduction of the documents before me, the claimant interjected to state that this was “all small talk” and that the respondent didn’t “want to talk about the crime they’ve committed against me”. He threatened to close the browser and leave the hearing. I again invited him to listen to what Mr Keen had to say, and explained that he could then respond. His response was to describe the hearing as “a circus”, and to say that he was a “victim of crime”, that the respondent had not produced any evidence against it, it was the fault of this Tribunal to allow that. He again repeated his allegation that Mr Keen was laughing and smirking at him during the previous hearing.[16]I tried to interject in order to move the hearing on, but the claimant continued to speak over me. As the claimant was showing no sign of allowing me or Mr Keen to speak without interruption, I took the step of putting the claimant on mute. I explained that I had done so in order to allow the hearing to proceed, that I would hear from Mr Keen and then the claimant would have the chance to reply. I note in passing that EJ Leith had had to take a similar approach (i.e. muting the claimant) at the most recent hearing in this case on 21 July 2023.[17]Mr Keen then continued his submissions. After a few minutes, I could see that the claimant was gesticulating on his camera, so I allowed him off mute to allow him to speak. He stated that there was a “need to talk about the crime” and the lack of evidence provided by the respondent to disprove the “crime” committed against him. He again repeated that he had taken matters up with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in his home country, that they would contact the UK government, and that we were “one inch from a case in Strasbourg”. I believe I then heard the claimant speak of “this dog laughing at me”, which I understood to be a reference to his allegation regarding Mr Keen at the previous hearing. That was Mr Keen’s understanding also. Again I tried to interject in order to move the hearing on, but the claimant continued to speak over me. In the circumstances, the only way to proceed was to place the claimant back on mute. Mr Keen continued.[18]A very short time later, the claimant disappeared from screen. I asked Mr Keen to pause and I asked if the claimant could hear us. He returned around 30 seconds later with a mug. He stated “you are offending me, laughing at me” and that Mr Keen was not addressing any of the allegations. He suggested that I “want to protect them”. I explained that my role is to determine the applications that have been made, and that to do so I have to hear from both Mr Keen and from the claimant, and that is what I intended to do. The claimant disappeared off screen again, returning after a few moments and again reiterating that “everything is the fault of this court”, and repeating his allegation that the respondent’s witness has invented a note of a call that never happened.[19]At this stage, having already explained several times that I needed to be able to hear from Mr Keen and that the claimant could make submissions after that, I put the claimant back on mute and explained that I would allow Mr Keen to continue uninterrupted. I explained that, if the claimant decided to move away from the screen again, I would no longer ask Mr Keen to pause until he returned, but I again encouraged the claimant to listen to the submissions so that he could respond afterwards.[20]Mr Keen continued with his submissions. During them, I observed the claimant going off screen for a short time and then returning to gesticulate wildly at the screen. For a few minutes, he held up at the camera a handwritten sign that read “Why is he not talking of the race discrimination “crimes””. On seeing that sign, I paused Mr Keen so that I could again explain to the claimant that the purpose of the hearing was to hear the strike-out applications, and that is why Mr Keen was addressing the points that he was addressing regarding the claimant’s conduct of the proceedings.[21]A short time later, seeing the claimant gesticulating again on the camera, I took him off mute. He stated “we finish this now”, reiterated his view that this was all the Tribunal’s fault because of delay in dealing with the disclosure application. When I sought to interject, he continued to talk over me. As he showed no signs of abating I placed him back on mute and observed him then violently bang the table in front of him, and take himself off screen. As Mr Keen’s submissions continued, the claimant returned with his handwritten sign and I observed him, on occasions, screaming at the camera.[22]After Mr Keen proceeded with his submissions for a few minutes, I again took the claimant off mute having observed him gesticulating. He stated that “you are wasting my time, you are discriminating”. I again explained that I was hearing the strike-out application. He retorted that we were not discussing the “crimes” and that if this was a serious Court I would strikeout the response. He then seemed to indicate that he was recording the hearing. I asked him to confirm if he was recording, and he confirmed that he was. I explained that I had given a warning at the outset of the hearing against recording and that he would have seen the same warning on entering the CVP room. I asked him if he would stop recording. He did not engage with my question but continued to speak over me. I put him back on mute and informed him that, in view of his conduct, if he would not confirm he would stop the recording I would exclude him from the hearing. I offered him a final chance to confirm he would stop recording. He ignored that and continued speaking over me instead. I therefore explained that I would now disconnect the claimant from the hearing, and make a report to the Regional Employment Judge to consider whether any further action should be taken against him. I then terminated his connection. In the circumstances, I considered that this step, whilst extreme, was necessary and consistent with the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly. The claimant’s conduct during the hearing was, I find, scandalous and unreasonable. Despite repeated encouragement to properly participate, and lesser steps initially being taken to try to allow the hearing to proceed fairly (namely, putting the claimant on mute and allowing him on occasion to speak notwithstanding Mr Keen was part way through his submissions), the claimant showed no signs of abating his behaviour and demonstrated throughout a clear disregard of the Tribunal and its processes, amounting to gratuitous insult to the Tribunal. That he was recording the hearing, despite warnings not to do so, and refused to stop recording when asked to do so, was further scandalous and unreasonable behaviour in itself.[23]Mr Keen went on to complete his submissions. In the circumstances, rather than deliver an oral judgment in the absence of the claimant, I reserved my judgment and began preparation of these written reasons immediately after completing the hearing. Procedural history: up to 19 May 2023[24]The claim was presented on 11 March 2022 and was responded to on 7 April 2022. At the initial consideration stage, the case was listed for a case management discussion on 16 February 2023 and a final hearing on 10- 11 July 2023 (subsequently moved to 5-6 October 2023 at the claimant’s request). Suggested case management orders were sent to the parties on 5 September 2022.[25]There was subsequent correspondence between the claimant and the Tribunal regarding confusion on the part of the claimant regarding the date of the case management discussion, though this was ultimately resolved. There was some intemperate language used by the claimant in this correspondence (e.g., in an email to the Tribunal dated 16 December 2022 stating “change the date. you are crazy you having a laugh at me. I will call on monday to complain”, and an email dated 21 December 2022 sent to the Tribunal, to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and to Ms Webb of the Respondent again demanding a change of date for the case management discussion).[26]In addition, in preparation for the case management discussion, on 17 January 2023 the claimant attempted to send several documents to the Tribunal. The email exceeded the file size limits on the Tribunal’s inbox and the claimant was sent a standard response by the Tribunal confirming this and inviting him to consider whether the documents are necessary and, if so, to consider providing by post. The claimant’s response on the following day was again rude in tone, stating: “There is not large documents at all. What are you talking about?”.[27]The file was referred to EJ Wright, on whose instructions a letter was sent to the claimant on 26 January 2023 in the following terms: “The tone of the claimant’s correspondence is noted. The claimant is put on notice that on its own initiative, the Tribunal may strike out a claim, if the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the claimant is unreasonable (Rule 37(1)(b)). Abusive correspondence may amount to unreasonable conduct of the proceedings. To avoid the claimant being struck out, the claimant is to temper his correspondence and to be polite.”[28]The claimant responded to this letter on the following day in these terms: “I do not know what you are talking about there is no swearing words neither offenses in the emails I just called criminals people that committed crimes to me. I just called people racist ..people were racist to me I do not understand your email.”[29]As the case management discussion approached, there was further correspondence from the claimant to the Tribunal and the respondent. This included a series of emails sent on 15 February 2023 in response to a notification from the Tribunal that, as evidence would not be given at a case management discussion, no permission was necessary to give evidence from abroad. In these emails the claimant made several statements that were (at least) disrespectful to the Tribunal, including the following:(1) “You have to get permission from abroad. This is direct discrimination on me. You demanded it from me for another case.! I DEMAND AN ARTICLE SHOWING THIS PERMISSION FOR IT ASAP! Anyhow this will be another case that will end up in Strasbourg?” (email 14:49)(2) “I demand you reginal judge to prove it. Attached here an example of the crimes your court committed to me. You even deceived me about getting this permission to do access the court outside the UK.” (email 15:07)(3) “This will another case that I will potentially prosecute this court and the UK in Strasbourg? I can not tolerate this unfair treatment towards me! You already caused me a lot of trouble and crimes to me in case 2300936/2022” (email 15:07)(4) “Provide this permission with an article today with immediate effect! I will not accept an participant in the hearing from abroad without permission!! See email attached you supported a criminal because of this permission from abroad!” (email 15:07)(5) “I want full explanation the court is trying to allow a participant and in case management hearing to be there without authorization. I demand full explanation. This court is already discriminating me. Actually this court committed several crimes to me already(document attached here)” (email 15:20). The document attached was a lengthy email concerning complaints the claimant had about decisions made in his separate litigation against the Civil Aviation Authority, which had also proceeded in London South ET.[30]The case management hearing proceeded on 16 February 2023, and EJ Brewer identified the issues, re-listed the final hearing for 2-4 August 2023, and made standard case management directions. It is unclear whether he raised the point at the hearing but in an email sent at 15:19 that afternoon, the claimant wrote to the respondent requesting that, 7 days prior to the date for exchanging documents as ordered by EJ Brewer, they should provide(1) the recorded interview on Zoom and(2) details of the nationality, origin and age of the person hired together with the letter of offer, contract of employment and payslips for at least 6 months. Further requests were made at 15:43 that day for the CV and qualifications of the new hire, and at 14:01 the following day for “all emails chain with the new hire and HR” and a demand that all documents be provided with watermarks and signatures to prove they are real.[31]The respondent provided its disclosure as ordered by EJ Brewer on 13 April 2023, and also responded to the claimant’s specific disclosure requests. It cited data protection issues in relation to certain of the requests, and provided some generalised information as to the nationality and ethnic origins of the shortlisted candidates together with the respondent’s diversity and inclusion policy. The claimant was not satisfied and emailed the Tribunal at 13:38 that day. I will quote that email in full: “To the tribunal with immediate effect I am making a submission to disclose the information of the new employee. I disagree you must produce proof of employment it's a court case. It's not a consumer case and you must disclose the information of the new employee. The act for personal information is concerned for consumers and not for court cases in particular race discrimination. Your racist employee Patrizia Wakefield direct discriminated my origin and the way Brazilian people speak You have a court order to disclose this information in 7 days from today. I am also making another submission to provide the recorded interview on zoom in 7 days from today If the respondent refuses to do it you must strike the respondent and issue a judgment with immediate effect. I already know they hired a British national with half of my skills and experience. The respondent is already proving they want to hide the race discrimination from me and the court. If the tribunal ignores this order I have no objection to appeal it at EAT within 7 days and also take it to the court of appeal too and the court in Strasbourg too as The National Counties Building Society is a public organization It's a race discrimination case and the information must be disclosed I hope this court does not act like a kangoroo court and show trial again!”[32]The respondent responded with its justification for not providing what the claimant sought, and the claimant responded in the following terms: “I disagree you must produce proof of employment it's a court case. It's not a consumer concern and you must disclose the information of the new employee. The act is concerned for consumers and not court cases in particular race discrimination. Your racist employee Patrizia Wakefield direct discriminated my origin and the way Brazilian people speak You have a court order to disclose this information in 7 days from today.”[33]I note that when the claimant refers to a “court order” in these emails, what he is referring to is his demand for provision of the information.[34]By 20 April 2023 (7 days after it had been made), the claimant’s application for specific disclosure had not yet been considered by a judge. At that point, the claimant began sending abusive emails to the Tribunal. I quote from them in full:(1)20 April 2023, 12:57 “HELLO KANGOROO COURT LONDON SOUTH ET I MADE A SUBMISSION KANGOROO COURT THEY RESPONDENT MUST DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION OF THE NEW HIRE CAN YOU REPLY KANGOROO COURT LONDON SOUTH ET?”(2)21 April 2023, 16:42 “Hello Kangoroo Nazi Son of prostitute court You already committed crimes to me Kangoroo Nazi Son of prostitute court. You discriminated me a few weeks ago and you are discriminating me again by ignoring the court order I made last week Are you going to ignore the court order to disclose the new hire like what you did for the other case for CivilAviationAuthority? Kangoroo Nazi Son of prostitute court? Criminals sons of prostitutes racists ! Why you ignore race discrimination SONS OF PROSTITUTES!”(3)28 April 2023, 14:19 “FUFILL MY ORDER DOGS RACISTS SONS OF PROUSTITES KANGOROO COURT SONS OF PROUSTITES RACISTS Hello Kangoroo Nazi Son of prostitute court You already committed crimes to me Kangoroo Nazi Son of prostitute court. You discriminated me a few weeks ago and you are discriminating me again by ignoring the court order I made last week Are you going to ignore the court order to disclose the new hire like what you did for the other case for CivilAviationAuthority? Kangoroo Nazi Son of prostitute court? Criminals sons of prostitutes racists ! Why you ignore race discrimination SONS OF PROSTITUTES!”[35]This correspondence was referred to EJ Dyal. On his direction, a letter was written to the parties on 4 May 2023. Having referred to the earlier warning given by EJ Wright and quoted from the claimant’s emails of 21 and 28 April 2023, he said this: “Your correspondence is totally unacceptable. Both judges and the administrative staff of the tribunal are entitled to go about their work without receiving and having to read abusive messages such as the ones you sent. My preliminary view is that your correspondence amounts to both unreasonable and scandalous conduct of the proceedings within the meaning of rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. There is a discretion to strike-out a claim where it is conducted unreasonably or scandalously. Accordingly, I am considering striking out your claim. Before I make my decision I would like to know whether or not you will continue writing to the tribunal in abusive terms and to give you and the Respondent the opportunity to make any representations in writing that you would like to on the subject of striking-out the claim. I therefore make the following orders. By not later than 16 May 2023: 1. The Claimant must write to the tribunal stating whether or not he will continue sending abusive messages to the tribunal. 2. The Claimant and the Respondent must write to the tribunal expressing any view they have on whether the claim should be struck-out.”[36]The claimant responded the same day in the following terms: You just have to fulfill my court order. That's all I will not swear if you do not discriminate me! It is a race discrimination case and you must ask the respondent to disclose the information I requested to you you are ignoring and direct discriminating me. That's why I swore. If you act as a proper court and do not ignore race discrimination there will not be any swearing coming from me because I will not feel discriminated. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? you breached the date of my order! YOU IGNORED MY ORDER! Act as a proper court and follow the rules FULFILL MY ORDER NOW!”[37]The respondent also provided a lengthy response indicating it was in favour of strike out. Having considered the parties’ submissions, EJ Dyal made the following determination, as sent to the parties in a letter dated 19 May 2023: “The Claimant’s response was in an email dated 4 May 2023. I am concerned by it. The Claimant seeks to shift the blame for his unacceptable and abusive correspondence to the tribunal. In effect he says ‘if you give me what I want I will stop swearing at you.’ The Claimant should be in no doubt that sending abusive correspondence is wholly unacceptable. It is wholly unacceptable even when he feels aggrieved that the tribunal has not given him what he wants or has taken longer than he wants to deal with his correspondence. The Respondent’s response to my letter is dated 16 May 2023. It is very lengthy and not entirely easy to follow. I understand the main points as follows:(1) The Respondent submits that the claim should be struck out because of the Claimant’s social media activities which it says are aimed at damaging its and other parties’ reputations.(2) The Respondent says it will make an alternative application to strikeout the claim and/or ask for deposit orders if the claim is not struck-out following my letter of 4 May 2023.(3) The Respondent submits that the claim should be struck out because of the Claimant’s correspondence both with the tribunal and the Respondent. Dealing with (1), the matters described do not sound to me as though they are conduct of the proceedings within the meaning of rule 37(1)(b). They are therefore not a basis for striking out the claim. Dealing with (2), it is a matter for the Respondent whether it makes any such application. Before doing so it would be sensible for it to consider the case law on striking out discrimination claims that turn on disputed facts (disputed facts included disputes about the reason why events happened, such as the reason why someone was not given a job). Turning back to the current issue of whether the Claimant’s claim should be struck-out because of the abusive correspondence that I referred to in my letter of 4 May 2023: - In my view, the Claimant’s correspondence was both scandalous and unreasonable conduct of the proceedings within the meaning of rule 37(1)(b). I therefore have a discretion to strike-out his claim. - The Claimant’s response to my letter is concerning for the reasons I have given. - However, I have decided that it would be proportionate to give the Claimant a final opportunity to pursue his litigation in a reasonable manner. He should take this letter as a final warning that if he sends any further abusive correspondence or otherwise conducts the proceedings in an unreasonable, scandalous or abusive way his claim may be struck-out.”[38]Accordingly, the position as at 19 May 2023 was that EJ Dyal had made a finding (which has not been challenged by the claimant) that his correspondence was both scandalous and unreasonable within the meaning of Rule 37(1)(b), but had been given a final warning in respect of his conduct of the proceedings rather than being struck-out. Events from 19 May 2023[39]It is the respondent’s submission that the claimant has ignored EJ Dyal’s final warning and that his correspondence with the Tribunal and the respondent has continued to be contemptuous and abusive. I was referred to numerous instances that post-date EJ Dyal’s final warning. I do not propose to refer to every instance referred to in written and/or oral submissions, but I find that at least the following are instances of correspondence in relation to these proceedings that was both scandalous and unreasonable within the meaning of Rule 37(1)(b). These instances show the claimant misusing these proceedings to(a) vilify employees and witnesses of the respondent (e.g. by repeatedly referring to them as racists, liars or criminals and accusing them of acts of bribery / forgery etc),(b) giving gratuitous insult to the court and/or(c) behaving unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings – in particular in refusing to cooperate with the respondent and repeatedly demanding that the Tribunal simply issue a judgment without following any further judicial process, and behaving abusively when he does not get his own way. I have quoted what I consider to be the most relevant parts of the messages in question. (1) Email of 7 June 2023 to Ms Mendoza of the respondent, 13:30: “get the recorded interview I did with Patrizia wakefiled and Dan Stow Patrizia wakefiled told me I speak abruptly and I can not communicate with people Abrupt is that shameless racist and even offended me vagabonds criminals get the recorded interview. I requested it at employment tribunals shameless racists vagabonds!” (2) Email of 8 June 2023 to Ms Mendoza (having been informed that the interview was not recorded), 23:16: “Lie somewhere vagabonds criminals If I had committed I crime you would bring it up no doubt. All companies record it! Racist vagabonds!” (3) Email of 12 June 2023 to Ms Webb of the respondent (in response to a communication seeking to agree the contents of the hearing bundle), 14:09: “no need to touch my documents I will use my bundle I alreasy made a court order bring the recorded interview dirty criminals” (4) Email of 16 June 2023 to Ms Dialani, in-house lawyer for the respondent and the Tribunal (in the context of correspondence regarding the possible need to permission to give evidence from overseas, and with reference back to the case management discussion in February 2023), 18:31: “The issue here is that your Indian solicitor was in India providing evidence and speaking to the judge at preliminary hearing without asking or providing evidence that she could do so! You already breached the law! Undoubtedly, The respondent( these racist criminals ) just want to avoid this hearing at all costs because they are too defensive and criminals. They are scared to provide the recorded interview (and must provide now and you must not ignore the judge), they are scared to provide information about the new hire. I already made a new court order for you tribunal to disclose the age of the new candidate I hope you reply to my court order in due course! I might even be discriminated on age too!” (5) Email of 19 June 2023 to Ms Dialani and the Tribunal, 17:08: “You must provide the recorded interview and disclose the age of the new hire. I am not hiding any information you dirty criminal. They only criminals here are you the respondent! You took the hearing from abroad without any permission The tribunal must strike the respondent with immediate effect for giving evidence without any communications with TOE. TOE said and affirmed in the email that there is no diplomatic objection dirty criminal deceiver!” (6) Email of 20 June 2023 to Ms Webb (in response to the provision by the respondent directly to the claimant of disclosures ordered by EJ Dyal following the claimant’s application and further confirmation that the interview was not recorded), 17:16: “Only if you believe in Santa Claus liar you have to copy the tribunal. I am not your colleague or employee to send me a private email ! Any company records actities outside their premises in case of a crime, conflict of interest, bribery and so on. Specially a financial institution like National Counties Building Society. Are you telling me here that National Counties Bulding Society is an regulated company? Or you think I am in a idiot and the rest of the world are idiots too? This case is likely to fall into conflict of interest too, which is another crime. Redo the email and address it to the tribunal not me!” (7) Email of 21 June 2023 to Ms Dialani and the Tribunal (following provision of further information regarding salary of the new hire and an explanation of why the respondent – in my view, entirely properly – did not copy the Tribunal on such correspondence), 20:11: The respondent can lie to someone else not or the court Only if you believe in Santa Claus you liar Jyoti Dialini as a solicitor you have to copy the tribunal in all communications or you are not a solicitor? but I am copying them here. I am not your colleague or employee to send me a private email and you are a solicitor and you have to copy the tribunal. Your crime also involves conflict of interest. You hired someone with half of my experience, British Citizen, younger than me and lacking in skills for the job description. You hired someone that could not do core skills for the role. That was the salary offered to me! Any company monitor their employees and record activities outside their premises in case of a crime, conflict of interest, bribery and so on. Specially a financial institution like National Counties Building Society. Are you telling me here that National Counties Building Society IS NOT regulated company? Or you think I am an idiot and the rest of the world are idiots too? SO JYOTI DIALANI YOU ARE TELLING THE TRIBUNAL EVEN AFTER SHOWING THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE TOOL FOR THE INTERVIEW RECORDS AUTOMATICALLY. YOU ARE ALSO TELLING THE TRIBUNAL THAT NATIONAL COUNTIES SOCIETY IS AN UNREGULATED BUSINESS THAT DO NOT MONITOR THEIR EMPLOYEES. SO THE EMPLOYEES OF NATIONAL COUNTIES SOCIETY CAN COMMITT BRIBERY, FORGERY, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DISCRIMINATION, HARRASSMENT AND THE CEO AND HR WILL NEVER KNOW ABOUT IT YOU ARE ULTIMATE SHAMELESS DIRTY LIAR EVER SEEN ON PLANET! YOU, VICK WEEB AND YOUR DIRTY CRIMINAL VAGABONDS RACISTS EMPLOYEES SO IN THE WHOLE UNITED KINGDOM THE ONLY FINANCIAL BUSINESS THAT DO NOT MONITOR THEIR EMPLOYEES IS Tribunal MUST STRIKE THE RESPONDENT with immediate effect and ISSUE a judgment ASAP. ABRUPT IS THE MOTHER OF THESE RACISTS CRIMINALS VAGABONDS LIARS!” (8) Email of 23 June 2023 to the Tribunal, Ms Webb and Ms Dialani, 13:30: The respondent failed to provide the recorded interview. The respondent can lie to someone else not me or the court by saying they did not record it. Well National Counties Building society is an unregulated financial services business? So their employees can commit a variety of crimes online such as bribery, conflict of interest, race discrimination, harassment and so on? Only if you believe in Santa Claus you liar Jyoti Dialini as a solicitor you have to copy the tribunal in all communications or you are not a solicitor? I am writing this email to strike you and the crimes you are hiding dirty criminal liar!. I am not your colleague or employee for you to send me private emails! Your crime also involves also conflict of interest. You hired someone with half of my experience, British Citizen, younger than me and lacking in skills for the job description. You hired someone that could not do core skills for the role, which these skills were discussed in the recorded interview on 11th February 2022! Any company monitor their employees and record activities outside their premises in case of a crime, conflict of interest, bribery and so on. Specially a financial institution like National Counties Building Society. Or you think I am an idiot and the rest of the world are idiots too? So if I had committed a crime to National Counties Building Society noone would know about it? Neither HR, the directors nor the police! You Jyoti Dialini and Vicki Webb are the most shameless dirty criminals liars I have seen in my life in conjunction with your dirty nonsense criminal employees! SO JYOTI DIALANI YOU ARE TELLING THE TRIBUNAL THAT EVEN AFTER SHOWING THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE TOOL USED FOR THE INTERVIEW RECORDS AUTOMATICALLY. YOU ARE ALSO TELLING THE TRIBUNAL THAT NATIONAL COUNTIES SOCIETY IS AN UNREGULATED BUSINESS THAT DO NOT MONITOR THEIR EMPLOYEES. SO THE EMPLOYEES OF NATIONAL COUNTIES BUILDING SOCIETY CAN COMMIT BRIBERY, FORGERY, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DISCRIMINATION, HARRASSMENT AND THE CEO, THE DIRECTORS, HR AND THE POLICE WOULD NEVER KNOW ABOUT IT! YOU ARE ULTIMATE SHAMELESS DIRTY LIARS EVER SEEN ON PLANET! YOU, VICK WEEB AND YOUR DIRTY CRIMINAL VAGABONDS RACISTS EMPLOYEES SO IN THE WHOLE UNITED KINGDOM THE ONLY FINANCIAL BUSINESS THAT DO NOT MONITOR THEIR EMPLOYEES IS Tribunal MUST STRIKE THE RESPONDENT with immediate effect and ISSUE a judgment ASAP. THE ONLY ONEONE THAT CAN NOT COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE AND IS ABRUPT YOU ARE YOU DIRTY RACISTS SHAMELESS CRIMINALS VAGABONDS LIARS! IF NOTHING IS DONE, THE COMMUNITY AND RELATED BUSINESSES WILL KNOW ABOUT IT IN DUE COURSE! Tribunal MUST STRIKE THE RESPONDENT with immediate effect and ISSUE a judgment ASAP.” (9) Email of 28 June 2023 to the Tribunal, Ms Dialani, Ms Mendoza and Ms Webb (in response to the respondent’s application for strike-out), 14:24: “To tribunals These criminals want to get way from their crimes. They discriminated and offended me on the internet. Acted defensively did not provide the recorded interview, did not want to show the person they hired. I showed the person they hired is not even close to my experience and qualifications, the person they hired do not even match the job description, the person they hired was not even a developer in her last role, British Citizen, younger than me . This company and these people are the ultimate racists, criminal dirty liars!. They have the courage to try to strike out the case. Tribunal you must fulfil my order and strike out the respondent and issue a judgement today! Abrupt, not able to communicate , racist and liars are these criminals Issue a judgement today as "National Counties Building Society" have not provided the recorded interview. Only "National Counties Building Society" is an unregulated business in the UK, only their employees can commit crimes on the internet such as bribery, conflict of interest (this case is a real conflict of interest Why hire someone underqualified for the role??) and race discrimination and harassment! "National Counties Building Society" is the only financial business in the UK that do not monitor the activities of their employees on the internet! What a ridiculous joke! If I have committed a crime I am more than 100% sure this recorded meeting would be with the metropolitan police ages ago! The internet will know National Counties Building Society is an unregulated business and their employees can commit crimes and absolutely noone in the company would know what they do on the internet including the police! The respondent have no honour no shame no regret for being a criminal! Issue a judgement today!” (10) Email of 13 July 2023 to the Tribunal, Ms Webb and Ms Bishop, the respondent’s witness (in relation to correspondence regarding final hearing dates), 15:06: “This woman Vicki Webb is having a laugh at me! Vicki Webb even tried to rob inventing costs that never existed! Vicki Webb bribed recruitment agencies to discriminate me! This woman is immoral and racist! Just issue a judgement” (11) Email of 14 July 2023 to the Tribunal, Ms Dialani, Ms Mendoza, Ms Webb and Ms Bishop (following the respondent’s request for an urgent hearing for strike-out), 17:44: “As you can the respondent have no shame, they are immoral, racist, dishonest and bribers "8 years old friend trying to help them out of the context". The even bribed Integral recruitment agency, ignored court orders, disclosure of very basic information you can find on the internet of the new hired employed by their conflict of interest, no inclusion of minorities, no foreign nationals in the team and even try to rob people using their own employees (solicitor) a serious breach in SRA code of conduct and principals!” (12) Email of 14 July 2023 to the Tribunal, Ms Dialani, Ms Mendoza, Ms Webb and Ms Bishop, 18:23: “Even more information and crimes committed to me. Apart from all the breaches in equality act 2010, race discrimination and harassment. The respondent made Louise Bishop produce a fraudulent document inventing she put a note in CRM system even the font in altered in the fraudulent word document produced by Louise Bishop … These crimes and followed by the email below are extremely serious crimes. The must be reported to SRA.org.uk and the metropolitan police for race discrimination, bribery, forgery and conflict of interest The respondent committed serious crimes in the case to avoid being penalized for the race discrimination I suffered! TRIBUNAL YOU MUST REPORT THEM TO SRA.ORG.UK AND THE METROPOLITAN POLICE!” (13) Email of 17 July 2023 to the Tribunal and Ms Webb, 18:53: “I think the respondent is too nonsense and immoral. Vicki Webb does not read emails. I told in advance I would produce my bundle (court order attached) due to crimes committed to me by the respondent during the course of the case such as BRIBERY ( the bribed Integral Recruitment and another agency to direct discriminated me) and FRAUD( the respondent asked Louise Bishop of Integral Recruitment to forge evidence) … On top of that, the respondent ignored the court order to provided the online recorded interview requested by judge Syed Haider on 9th June 2023. The title and the body of the email for the recorded interview SPEAKS FOR ITSELF! I used their internal system and all financial companies regulated by FCA monitor the activities of their employees online against crimes such as money laundry, BRIBERY, FRAUD, FORGERY, RACE DISCRIMINATION, HARRASSMENT. All these crimes listed in CAPITAL LETTERS National Counties Building Society committed to me. … You can issue a judgement with immediate effect against National Counties Building Society fulfil my schedule of loss (they caused me deep depression) along side a severe penalty against Integral Recruitment for race discrimination, harassment, obstruction of justice, fraud and forgery of documents and for accepting a bribe to commit a crime to me. The respondent did not provide the recorded online interview because they know I did nothing wrong. I acted professionally and I was simply attached for no reason by a mono cultured radical racist! EVEN WORSE THE RESPONDENT TRIED TO ROB ME INVETING IMAGINARY COSTS AND KNOWING THE CRIMES THE COMMITTED TO ME TRYING TO STRIKE OUT THE CASE FOR NOT A SOLID REASON. TRIBUNAL YOU MUST REPORT THE RESPONDENT TO THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AND SRA.ORG.UK (HUGE BREACHES IN SRA CODE OF CONDUCT AND PRINCIPALS). THE RESPONDENT HID THE MOST BASIC INFORMATION OF THE NEW HIRE WHERE THE COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME! CONFLICT OF INTEREST! THEY HIRE ON INTEREST NOT ON MERIT! NOT ON INCLUSION, NOT ON DIVERSITY, NOT ON SKILLS, NOT ON EXPERIENCE. THEY HIRE ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST! THIS IS A CRIME THIS IS DISCRIMINATION! THEY ARE TOO RACIST! And the racist Patrizia Wakefield ignored I called her a racist twice in the email, did not apologize and did not reply to my email below confirming I did absolutely nothing wrong I acted professionally! I was simply attacked for no reason by a mono cultured radical racist! THAT IS WHY THE RESPONDENT DID NOT PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION AND THE RECORDED ONLINE INTERVIEW! FINISH THE CASE NOW!!!!!” (14) Email of 21 July 2023 to the Tribunal and Ms Webb (following the hearing before EJ Leith), 16:42: “The councellor Spencer Keen was lauging and smirking at me and judge Leith is supporing it by inventing facial expressions are fine. FACIAL EXPRESSIONS?? GET THE RECORDED HEARING YOU WILL SEE SPENCER KEEN LAUGHING AND SMIRKING AT ME! I was harasssed and insulted during the live hearing and this offense must be in my strike out submission As per pre hearing today you must strike out the case today.. I made this complaint to judge Leith twice AND HE IGNORED IT AND SAID IT WAS A FACIAL EXPRESSION?? Strike out the case and respondent I was disrespected live during the hearing. The respondent ignored all court orders and acted in a deceitful, dishnost way as per previous complaints below!” (15) Email of 25 July 2023 to the Tribunal and Ms Webb, 14:25: You have also to add that the racist criminal respondent tried to rob me inventing costs using their own employees I also put that as a bullet point. Apart from ignoring all court orders they tried this horrendous crime, which is in their claim to strike out. I hope you do not act as a Kangaroo court and show trial again. South London Employment Tribunals you know my complaints to the president of ET and you and the crimes you committed to me in another case and the racist show trial you did to me ignoring my health and fraudulent evidence and information of another case. The race discrimination is in writing and also live in the pre hearing on Friday 21/07/2023. The respondents councillor was laughing and smirking at me while I was taking about the crimes they committed to me. No need for any hearing just issue a judgement! The respondent even offended me live in court!” (16) Email of 25 July 2023 to the Tribunal, Ms Webb, Ms Mendoza and also to the Support Office for the President of the Employment Tribunal (England and Wales), 16:50: “The tribunal and president Barry Clerk Do not forget all my complaint to this court and the president of Employment Tribunals in copy THE RESPONDENT DISCRIMINATED AND HARASSED ME IN WRITING AND NOW LIVE IN THE HEARING ON FRIDAY 21ST JULY 2023 BY SMIRKING AND LAUGHING AT ME WHILE I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE CRIMES THE RESPONDENT COMMITTED TO ME! AND DO FORGET ALL THE OTHER CRIMES THE RESPONDENT COMMITTED TO ME AS FOLLOWS: -BRIBERY( BRIBED RECRUITMENT AGENCIES TO DIRECT DISCRIMINATE ME. THE 8 YEARS OLD FRIEND RECRUITMENT AGENT!) -FORGERY ( ASKED THE RECRUITMENT AGENCY INTEGRAL RECRUITMENT TO ALTER THE ORGINAL EMAIL COMPLAINNING ABOUT THE RACE DISCRIMINATION WHERE THEY INGNORED ME AND DID NOT REPLY TO ME AND THE CRIMINAL RACIST TYPED A FAKE CRIMINAL NOTE ON MICROSOFT WORD! THIS IS HORRENDOUS YOU MUST REPORT IT TO THE METROPOLITAN POLICE!) -CONFLICT OF INTEREST - HIRED SOMEONE WITH A QUARTER OF MY EXPERIENCE AND SKILLS. A PROUD TO BE SOUTH LONDONER THAT WAS NOT EVEN A DEVELOPER IN HER PREVIOUS ROLE! RIDICULOUS AND CRIMINAL! -COMTEMPT OF COURT AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - HID THE RECORDED INTERVIEW FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 9TH JUNE 2023. THE CRIME IS ALREADY CONFESSED! AND IGNORED ALL COURT ORDERS AND SUBMISSIONS FOR BASIC INFORMATION OF THE NEW HIRE! -ROBERRY - TRIED TO ROB ME AND STRIKE OUT THE CASE FOR A WEEK REASON BY INVETING IMAGINARY COSTS USING THEIR OWN INTERNAL EMPLOYEES! CRIMINAL RACIST DIRTY THIEVES! The above is enough to end the case and issue a judgement. The race discrimination and harassment crimes were committed to me in writing and now live at the pre hearing on Friday 21/07/2023 by the respondents councillor laughing and smirking at me. And all the other complaints about this court addressed to the president of Employment Tribunal Barry Clerk on Monday 24/07/2023 and today 25/07/2023 and your new "judge" Leith protecting the respondent after the offense committed to by saying it was a facial expression! it is an scandal and a further harassment and offence towards me!” (17) Email of 25 July 2023 to the Tribunal, Ms Webb, Ms Mendoza and the Support Office for the President of the Employment Tribunal (England and Wales), 18:14: “On top that tribunal This thief liar racist criminal Vicki Webb wants to rely on judgements of other cases not related to this case. YOU DIRTY THIEF VICKY WEBB YOUR DIRTY RACIST EMPLOYEE DISCRMINATED ME IN WRITING. YOU DIRTY THIEF VICKY WEBB YOUR CONCILLOR HARASSED AND OFFENDED ME IN A THE PRE HEARING ON FRIDAY 21ST JULY 2023 BY LAUGHING AND SMIRKING AT ME where I am victim of crimes and the metropolitan police and the Brazilian embassy are aware of it. Tribunal you better report the criminal activities of the thief liar Vicki Webb to the police Bribery ( bribing recruitment agencies) , Forgery (asking the agency to alter a document in Microsoft word), Conflict of Interest and Race Discrimination, Harassment too President Barry Clerk reply to this email and criminal activates of your courts committed to me too (document attached). These complains are with judicial ombudsman the metropolitan police is aware and the Brazilian embassy too YOU DIRTY THIEF VICKY WEBB the crimes they committed to me are at court of appeal! (attached). You want to rely on crimes committed to me by this tribunal and another tribunal DIRTY THIEF VICKY WEBB ANYWAY, YOU DIRTY THIEF VICKY WEBB YOUR DIRTY RACIST EMPLOYEE DISCRMINATED ME IN WRITING. YOU DIRTY THIEF VICKY WEBB YOUR CONCILLOR HARASSED AND OFFENDED ME IN A THE PRE HEARING ON FRIDAY 21ST JULY 2023 BY LAUGHING AND SMIRKING AT ME” (18) Email of 27 July 2023 to the Tribunal, Ms Webb and Ms Mendoza, 02:29: “Apart from these dirty racist thieves inventing costs using their own employees and trying to strike the case for a weak reason and breaching court orders and submission made by myself and judge Syed Haider on 9th July 2023. These dirty racist thieves offended and harassed me at pre hearing by laughing and smirking at me on Friday 21st July 2023 The respondent also invested I was calling them. I ALSO URGE THIS COURT TO ASK THEM TO PROVE THIS LIE AND CRIME AGAINST BY 2ND AUGUST 2023 AND DO NOT FORGET AGAIN SOUTH LONDON TRIBUNAL ALL THE CRIMES BELOW AND MY SUBMISSIONS!” (19) Email of 1 August 2023 to the Tribunal, Ms Webb and the Support Office for the President of the Employment Tribunal (England and Wales), 14:44: “Tribunal and Vicki Webb Do not forget the crimes you committed to me tribunal and Vicki Webb. Look at the number of authorities I am contacting the issues below will become diplomatic issues between Brazil and the United Kingdom and this dirty thief Vicky Webb wanted to use previous cases as some reason to strike out this case. Vicki Webb you also must be in jail for race discrimination, bribery, forgery, robbery, contempt of court and obstruction of justice. You are criminal Vicky Webb. Read the email below! And president Barry Clarke reply to the email below and the authorities!” Note that the “email below” was one sent earlier that day to an investigating officer at the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman concerning matters raised by the claimant in respect of another Employment Judge who dealt with another of the claimant’s cases. It was copied to a very wide range of recipients, including the Metropolitan Police, the Brazilian Consultate, several Employment Tribunal regions, the Cabinet Office, several MPs, the Support Office for the President of the Employment Tribunal (England and Wales) and the Court of Appeal.[40]In addition to the correspondence set out above, I have also found that the claimant’s conduct at the hearing before me was scandalous and unreasonable within the meaning of Rule 37(1)(b) – see paragraph 22 above.[41]I have also been told by the respondent that one of their witnesses, Ms Bishop of Integral Recruitment, received very shortly after service of her witness statement, several abusive telephone calls and that she believes (based on the timing and the language used, including repeated use of the term “fucking prostitute”) that they were from the claimant. I am in no position to make findings about that, and in light of my findings above it is not necessary for me to do so. I will note, however, that Ms Bishop has reported these matters to the police. Rule 37(2) safeguard[42]There is no doubt, and I find, that the claimant has had a reasonable opportunity to make representations as to why the claim should not be struck-out, both in writing and at a hearing, as required under Rule 37(2). There has been a huge volume of written correspondence from the claimant to the Tribunal relating to the respondent’s strike-out application, as already set out. The claimant had the opportunity to make submissions at the hearing but, as a result of his conduct requiring him to be excluded from the hearing, he did not take that opportunity. In any event, the claimant repeatedly indicated during the hearing that he did not wish to deal with the “small talk” of the respondent’s application, so even if he had been present throughout the hearing, it is highly unlikely he would have engaged with the issues being raised anyway. Discretion to strike out[43]As I am satisfied that the Rule 37(1)(b) limb is met and the Rule 37(2) safeguard satisfied, I must now consider whether it is proportionate and in accordance with the overriding objective to strike-out the claim.[44]As in any strike-out case, there will be prejudice to the claimant in not being able to pursue his claim further if it is struck-out. The question is whether that prejudice is outweighed by other factors. I consider that the following factors are relevant to the exercise of my discretion in this case.[45]First, that the claimant has been warned twice before about his abusive correspondence – by EJ Wright in January 2023 and by EJ Dyal in May 2023. EJ Dyal’s letter was very clear in explaining that the claimant was on a final warning in this regard. However, he has continued in much the same vein.[46]Second, the inevitable impact of the claimant’s correspondence on the recipients. EJ Dyal recognised the impact on the Tribunal when he said in his letter of 4 May 2023: “Both judges and the administrative staff of the tribunal are entitled to go about their work without receiving and having to read abusive messages such as the ones you sent.” There will also be an impact on those involved in the conduct of the case on behalf of the respondent. Whilst it is often the case in proceedings of this nature that emotions are involved and correspondence can become fraught, the claimant’s correspondence goes far over the line of what is acceptable. The respondent and its employees and witnesses are entitled to defend themselves without being subjected to repeated abuse.[47]Third, that there is no real prospect of a fair trial being possible. As things stand, there is no final hearing listed – the listing of 2-4 August 2023 was converted to a preliminary hearing to determine these strike-out applications instead. Inevitably that means, were the case to continue, there would be several months until the case is heard, during which time the parties will necessarily have to interact. I see no realistic prospect of the claimant changing his behaviour in light of his conduct to date, which means several more months of abusive correspondence to the respondent (and the Tribunal) is likely. Coming to the final hearing itself, based on the claimant’s behaviour today, I see no realistic prospect of the claimant properly participating in an orderly manner. He has shown no interest in allowing the Tribunal to fairly and justly exercise its judicial function, but rather expects everything to be done on his terms and is disruptive and abusive if he does not get his own way. Mr Keen drew my attention to the judgment of EJ Self in the claimant’s case against the Civil Aviation Authority (2307824/2020) which includes many findings regarding the claimant’s disruptive, unreasonable and abusive conduct at the final hearing in that case, which are consistent with his behaviour in the present hearing. I have no doubt that the claimant would conduct himself similarly were there to be a final hearing (or any other hearings) in this case.[48]Fourth, proportionality. I do not consider that it is possible any longer for this case to be dealt with proportionately. At the core of the claim is a relatively straightforward allegation of race discrimination made in the context of the outcome of a single job interview. However, the claimant’s conduct has made the case balloon, putting a disproportionate burden on the respondent (in defending itself against allegations) and the Tribunal (in administering and determining the claim). If the case is allowed to continue, there is no reason to believe that things will change.[49]In my judgement, taking account of the above factors, the sanction of strike-out of the claim is appropriate, proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective in the circumstances of this case. I therefore strike out the claim. The claimant’s second claim[50]On 7 July 2023 the claimant presented a further claim to the Tribunal. It is brought against both the current respondent and Integral Recruitment. This claim was mentioned during the hearing before EJ Leith and the possibility of the claims being combined was discussed. The claimant wished for them to be combined. The respondent also wished for them to be combined so that its strike-out application could also deal with the second claim, which it says infringes the rule in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 and is an abuse of process.[51]The second claim has reference 2303198/2023. As of the date of the hearing (and of this judgment), the claim has not yet been accepted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I explained to the parties that I could not consider a strike-out of that claim. However, I will direct that a copy of this judgment and of the respondent’s letter of 14 July 2023 be placed on the file of the second claim so that they are available to those dealing with that claim at the vetting stage. The claimant’s application for strike-out of the response[52]In view of my findings above, it is not necessary to determine the claimant’s cross-application for strike-out of the response. However, I consider it appropriate to set out my views on that application.[53]As summarised by EJ Leith in paragraph 2.2 of his Case Management Order following the hearing on 21 July 2023, the claimant relies upon the following seven allegations, which he says demonstrate that the respondent conducted the proceedings in a manner which was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious:(1) The respondent allegedly bribing a recruitment agency;(2) The respondent or the recruitment agency allegedly altering / forging a document;(3) The respondent not recording the claimant’s interview, or failing to disclose the recording of the interview;(4) The respondent not disclosing the age of the successful candidate for the role for which the claimant interviewed;(5) The respondent not disclosing other basic information about the successful candidate;(6) The respondent ignoring court orders to do the previous three things;(7) The respondent’s counsel, Mr Keen, allegedly smirking / laughing at the claimant during the hearing on 21 July 2023.[54]I deal with the allegations in turn:(1) As far as I understand it, the claimant argues that the respondent has “bribed” a recruitment agent, Mr Raval, so that he would provide an email regarding his interactions with the claimant. (A separate allegation of bribery in respect of Ms Bishop is dealt with under(2) below.) To explain the context – the claimant’s CV was placed with the respondent by Ms Bishop of Integral Recruitment; Mr Raval was another recruiter also acting for the respondent in respect of the same role who was in contact with the claimant. As the claimant’s CV had already been placed with the respondent, the claimant’s interactions with Mr Raval were fairly brief. For the purposes of these proceedings, the respondent reached out to Mr Raval for comment on his interactions with the claimant, and Mr Raval described that he found the claimant “to be short, sharp and slightly rude with all communications”. The only basis that I can discern for the claimant’s accusation of bribery is that Mr Raval has nothing to do with this case and has an 8 year history of working with the respondent, from which the claimant infers he must have been in some way financially motivated to help the respondent in this case. I do not agree that this is an inference that can properly be drawn. What Mr Raval says is consistent with the email exchanges with the claimant that he refers to. I see no basis to assume that he has been incentivised in any way to say what he has said. The respondent denies the allegation. I cannot find, at this stage, that this is an example of scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct. Had this case proceed to a final hearing, it would have been open to the claimant to argue that what Mr Raval says is of no relevance and (since he was not to be called as a witness) given little or no weight. He could even have put his allegation of “bribery” to the respondent’s witnesses and the Tribunal could have made findings of fact based on the evidence. It is not a point for strike-out. (2) I understand the claimant’s allegation in this regard to be that Ms Bishop has fraudulently created a document that incorporates a note that she says she made in her company’s CRM system on 11 February 2022 (after the claimant’s interview with the respondent) of a telephone call she says she had with the claimant that afternoon. The claimant denies any such call happened. He alleges that Ms Bishop must have been “bribed” by the respondent to create this false note – an allegation that is denied by the respondent. The claimant relies on the fact that the document produced by Ms Bishop which incorporates the note from CRM is a Word document into which emails have also been placed, and that the alteration of font sizes is proof the document is fraudulent. The part of the document that has the CRM note reads as follows: “(note I made on my CRM) Call – Update 11 Feb 2022 15:21 Called him as Patrizia said he had emailed her directly asking for feedback and then when she said he was abrupt during his interview, saying she was racist because of his accept. He said he didn’t want to talk to me as he was going to call ACAS. Thanked him and ended the call.” It is evident that the document has been created by cut-and-pasting the CRM note into a Word document (as is clear from the bracketed words at the start). That does not prove it is a fraudulent document. The key question is whether the note is a true record of a call that took place, or is not. Ms Bishop says it is, the claimant says it is not. This is the kind of factual dispute that would need to be resolved at a final hearing by the hearing of evidence. I cannot find, at this stage, that this is an example of scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct on the part of the respondent. Had this case proceed to a final hearing, it would have been open to the claimant to put the point to Ms Bishop and the Tribunal could have made findings of fact based on the evidence. It is not a point for strike-out.(3) As regards any failure on the part of the respondent to record the interview with the claimant if and insofar as it had any obligation to do so, that cannot be characterised as conduct in the proceedings so is not relevant to an application for strike-out. As regards failure to provide disclosure of the recording – the respondent’s position is that the interview was not recorded and therefore there is no recording to produce. The claimant asserts that it must have been recorded because “all companies record their employees’ activities on virtual environments especially interviews and meetings with external suppliers”, and that is particularly so for financial institutions. However, this is mere assertion without genuine foundation. I cannot find, at this stage, that this is an example of scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct. Had this case proceed to a final hearing, it would have been open to the claimant to put the point to the respondent’s witnesses and the Tribunal could have made findings of fact based on the evidence. It is not a point for strike-out.(4) The claimant applied for disclosure of information relating to the age of the new hire, and this application was refused by EJ Dyal in a letter of 9 June 2023. EJ Dyal stated “In my view the successful candidate’s age is immaterial. This is not an age discrimination claim and the age of the candidate has no bearing on either side’s claim/defence so far as I can see.” In that light, the non-provision by the respondent of information relating to the age of the new hire cannot be characterised as scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct – rather it is entirely reasonable and proper.(5) As regards this point, the key touchstone is again EJ Dyal’s letter of 9 June 2023 which dealt with the claimant’s disclosure application and made certain directions. So far as I can see, the respondent has complied with what EJ Dyal ordered to be provided. The respondent’s conduct in this regard cannot be characterised as scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious – rather it is entirely reasonable and proper.(6) As regards this allegation, by “court orders” I understand the claimant to mean his own requests for documents and information (see paragraph 33 above). However, what the respondent is actually required to do is comply with orders made by the Tribunal i.e., in this regard, with what EJ Dyal ordered to be provided in his letter of 9 June 2023. As stated above, the respondent has done so. There is nothing in this point.(7) The allegation against Mr Keen was raised at the hearing before EJ Leith, and is dealt with in paragraph 22 of his Case Management Order. The judge did not see anything untoward. Mr Keen denies the allegation and Ms Webb, who also attended that hearing, says she did not see anything untoward either. I am in no position to make a finding that Mr Keen behaved unreasonably. There is nothing in this point either.[55]Accordingly, had it been necessary to rule on the claimant’s application to strike-out the response, I would have refused it on the basis that none of the grounds in Rule 37(1) has been made out.