Miss R Saeeda v Ms J Gamble-Flowers and Salford City College Group: 2401162/2023 and 2404533/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2401162/2023, 2404533/2023
Between
Miss R SaeedaClaimantMs J Gamble-Flowers and Salford City College GroupRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Phil AllenIn person for claimantMr N Caiden (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 20 December 2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The application to strike out the responses of both respondents is refused.
REASONS
These are the reasons for the refusal of the respondent’s application to strike out the claim and the reasons for the refusal of the claimant’s application to strike out the response. Detailed reasons were given orally at the hearing on 21 October 2025. ”. Case Number: 2401162/2023 & 2404533/2023 2 The respondent’s application.[1]By email of 18 August 2025 (pp.120-121), the Respondents applied to strike the claims in their entirety out on the grounds that pursuant to Rule 38(1)(b) ET Rules of Procedure 2024 “the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant…has been scandalous unreasonable or vexatious. In the alternative the respondent relied on Rule 38(1)(c) ET Rules of Procedure 2024 for “non-compliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the Tribunal”.[2]By email of 18 August 2025 (pp.120-121), the Respondents applied to strike the claims in their entirety out on the grounds that pursuant to Rule 38(1)(b) ET Rules of Procedure 2024 “the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant…has been scandalous unreasonable or vexatious. In the alternative the respondent relied on Rule 38(1)(c) ET Rules of Procedure 2024 for “non-compliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the Tribunal”.[3]I had a separate bundle of documents from each party. These were uploaded to the document uploaded centre.[4]The respondent submitted that the manner in which proceedings have been conducted by the claimant has been unreasonable. They also submitted the claimant had failed to comply with a case management order of the Tribunal.[5]The essence of the application was that the Claimant has both repeatedly conducted herself in a manner which was unreasonable – namely repeated applications and correspondence – and therefore prevented a final hearing taking place and had also breached the Tribunal order for disclosure.
The Law.
[6]The relevant rule is Rule 38 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 – Striking out: (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 is scandalous or vexations 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; and (c) for non-compliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the Tribunal; Turning to potential strike out under Rule 38 (1)(b.) Case Number: 2401162/2023 & 2404533/2023 3[7]Counsel for the respondent reminded me of the well-known principles identified in many cases but particularly in Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology [2009] EWCA Civ 96 as being a 3 stage test which is(i) a conclusion that the conduct was unreasonable,(ii) no fair trial is possible as a result of this and(iii) that striking out is proportionate.[8]I turn to the first step. Has the manner in which the claimant conducted the proceedings been unreasonable?[9]I consider the answer to this question is yes. I have taken into account that the claimant is a litigant in person, who is disabled by reason of dyslexia and dyspraxia and Irlen syndrome. However she is also an intelligent woman, who worked for the respondent as a teacher.[10]The Tribunal has been extremely patient. There have been 6 previous case management hearings where various Judges have tried to clarify the list of issues with the claimant, make clear case management orders and list for final hearing. The Tribunal is sympathetic to the claimant’s disabilities and made reasonable adjustments for the hearings. Despite this the claimant continues to send voluminous, repetitive applications to the Tribunal, engages in satellite litigation instead of complying with a simple case management order- to disclose her documents to the respondent -which would then enable the parties to exchange witness statements and proceed to the final hearing.[11]The Tribunal has twice listed the case for final hearing but has been unable to proceed. The hearing which was listed for this week could not proceed because the claimant failed to disclose her documents, in breach of the order made by Judge Phil Allen. This meant the bundle could not be finalised and witness statements could not be exchanged.[12]The claimant has made repeated applications that all Employment Judges of the North West Region should recuse themselves, and repeatedly made applications to have the case transferred out of region, without any sound basis. This is unreasonable conduct.[13]The Claimant has also repeatedly refusal to accept the issues as set down by the Tribunal or orders of the Tribunal in general and I consider this is likely to be unreasonable conduct.[14]The Claimant has persistently objected to and asked for something to be varied or withdrawn altogether (pp.331, pp.338-339, p.387, p.485,). The Claimant has even asked for her to see drafts versions of any Case Management Order before it is promulgated (sent to both parties) to ensure it is “Meek compliant” (p.404) and made requests for judge’s notes (p.414).[15]Despite the list of issues being finalised by the Tribunal – at a two-day Preliminary Hearing before Judge Allen after a hearing with multiple amendment applications – the Claimant on 13 February 2025 did not accept these and wished to bring her own parallel list of issues (p.554). Case Number: 2401162/2023 & 2404533/2023 4[16]There have been repeated applications on the same topic by the claimant and then there is the sheer number of applications/correspondences itself. That is unreasonable conduct.[17]The Claimant was still bringing applications to amend her claim see her letter on 1 May 2025 (which cover historic matters) even though she was failing to disclose her documents, and the trial was meant to soon start and she had brought (unsuccessfully) numerous previous amendment applications (pp.574-578).[18]Indeed the claimant has made further applications to amend her claim immediately prior to this hearing, dated 19 October 2025.[19]The claimant as I have said is an intelligent woman. Numerous Judges have stated clearly she must cooperate with the respondent and focus on preparing her case for final hearing.[20]In his note of the Case Management Hearing Employment Judge Butler, in May 2023, drew the Claimant’s attention to the overriding objective: “The Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, through the overriding objective at Rule 2, requires the parties to co-operate with both each other and the tribunal. Co-operation is a fundamental principle in the Employment Tribunal and one that the parties must have in mind during these proceedings”.[21]The claimant was reminded by Employment Judge Leach at the Preliminary Hearing of 15 November 2023 as documented at p.298 “It is incumbent on the parties to now cooperate and ensure that there is an agreed bundle and statements and that there are no/minimal case management issues to raise at the start of the hearing”.[22]On 3 July 2023, the Tribunal noted that “You have made a number of applications and have asked that these are determined at a hearing without the respondent being present. You have established no basis for such an extraordinary departure from the Tribunal’s procedures. If you wish to maintain these applications, and for them to be determined in this way, you can do so at the next preliminary hearing on 13 July 2023”.[23]on 6 September 2023, the Tribunal queried the merit of the strike out application the Claimant was pursuing, but rather than heed that warning she repeatedly persisted in it (p.247). The same is noted in the Preliminary Hearing of 15 November 2023 p.301 at [36] and pp.458 [38]-[41].[24]The Claimant was repeatedly told that there was nothing unjustified in the joint representation of the First and Second Respondent but consistently raised the point (see EAT p.284 [4] and p.495 [30]).[25]in the Tribunal correspondence of 22 January 2024, the Tribunal warned that “Case management Orders have been made in this case. The claimant must comply with them. I am concerned from reviewing recent correspondence that Case Number: 2401162/2023 & 2404533/2023 5 she does not intend to. Non-compliance may result in some or all of the claims being struck out…” (p.348 [8]) and in respect of disclosure in particular noted “The claimant must also note that the requirements to disclose evidence as noted above is part of a case management timetable that has been set out. The claimant must ensure she complies with the orders against her. Otherwise, the parties will not be able to comply with some of the later orders in the timetable” (p.349 [13]).[26]At the Preliminary Hearing of 1 October 2024 record Employment Judge Barker noted “It is important for the claimant to understand that the Tribunal may not be able to provide her with everything that she has asked for .In some instances this may simply not be possible, The Tribunal is not under an obligation to provide the claimant with all and any adjustments that she requests, but the duty is to provide reasonable adjustments” at p.478 [14]. Additionally, it was stated “I am deeply concerned by the number of other issues that arise in this claim, apparently as a consequence of attempts by the Tribunal to manage the proceedings. There have been a number of appeals by the claimant to the EAT about case management decisions, all of which have been unsuccessful. The claimant also applies to have the whole of the North West ET recuse itself on the basis of bias. She applies to have the whole of the response struck out. The basis of these applications remains unclear. Given the claimant’s communication difficulties, the complexity of the claims she has brought, the number of other applications that she has made and the delay, I am concerned that the claimant’s original complaints in her ET1 are in danger of becoming overtaken by litigation (with little or no apparent prospects of success) about the litigation. This is in no- one’s interests, let alone the claimant’s” (p.478 [16]).[27]The EAT in giving judgment dismissing an appeal stated: “I recognise the concern that the claimant has at what she regards as improper conduct on the part of her former employer in instructing solicitors to act in the case against Ms Gamble Flowers herself. It is, however, normal for employers in such a situation to provide legal representation when what is alleged is in relation to the employee working in that role. Other than complying with the Tribunal’s directions, it is also legitimate for respondents in Tribunal cases not to engage in protracted correspondence and to refuse to answer questions. Ultimately, the claimant’s best interests must lie in ensuring that this case comes to trial as swiftly as possible and that all of the matters in dispute are adjudicated on the basis of contested evidence.” (p.495).[28]On 21 December 2024, following a Preliminary Hearing on the issue, an oral judgment was giving dismissing all Claimant’s applications to strike out the responses (p.520 )[29]On 29 May 2024, the Tribunal stated that “recent correspondence has been excessive” and the Claimant’s application to produce an additional list of issues was refused. The Tribunal noted “The claimant’s application for a further preliminary hearing (case management) is refused. The joined claims have already had six preliminary hearings conducted. It is important that the parties now prepare the case for the final hearing as listed, in accordance with Case Number: 2401162/2023 & 2404533/2023 6 the case management orders made. It is not in accordance with the overriding objective, and in particular saving expense, for a further preliminary hearing to be arranged. I note that some of the reasons given in the application of 23 March 2024 for such a hearing being requested are matters which have been heard and judicially determined, including the claimant’s application to strike out the responses and recusal of all North West Employment Judges” (p.580).[30]The issue of excessive correspondence was repeated in the 10 April 2024 Tribunal letter which reminded the claimant of the need for proportionality. “The extent of correspondence from the claimant is considerable. Tribunals have limited resources and need to apply those resources proportionately in dealing with the considerable number of current claims. Having had the responses below, it is hoped that the claimant will now be able to focus on preparing for the hearing on 8 July rather than corresponding with the Tribunal.” (p.607)[31]Having found the claimant is acting unreasonably in the way she is conducting proceedings, I turn to the next issue-is a fair trial still possible? Is a fair trial still possible.[32]I remind myself of the decision in Bailey v Aviva Employment Services Ltd [2025] EAT 109 at [47] and [51], where it was noted that the second and third step (possibility of fair trial and proportionality) are often in practice intertwined.[33]Both the parties told me that a fair trial is no longer possible. I disagree.[34]There is a final list of issues prepared by Judge Allen. The respondent has prepared and disclosed a list relevant document for final hearing dated 31 Jan 2025. What needs to happen next is for the claimant to send her documents to the respondent. To date she has not done so. She previously asked for an extension of time to do so. She has then become absorbed in numerous other correspondence and applications.[35]The claimant needs to do one simple thing-send any documents she has, which are not in the respondents list, to the respondent.[36]Then the respondent can finalise the bundle. Then the parties can exchange witness statements.[37]In essence the respondent thinks a fair trial is not possible because it believes the claimant will not comply with the order to prepare for hearing. I am not yet satisfied they are right. I consider it is still possible have fair hearing. I am satisfied there is absolutely no basis for the claimant’s reasons in suggesting a fair trial is not possible. See my reasons in refusing her application to strike out the response. There is no evidence whatsoever of Case Number: 2401162/2023 & 2404533/2023 7 fraud or destruction of relevant documents. This is a misunderstanding on the claimant’s part.[38]The Tribunal wants to ensure a fair hearing for all parties. The Tribunal has put in place -extensive reasonable adjustments for the claimant. There will be a further ground rules hearing to ensure the best adjustments are in place to support the claimant and ensure a fair final hearing[39]All this means a fair hearing is still possible. Is it proportionate to strike out the claim.[40]I turn to last issue- I must consider whether it is proportionate to strike out. Strike out is a draconian sanction to be exercised sparingly. I must consider whether there is any lesser sanction. I consider it appropriate to issue an unless order in relation to the claimant’s provision of documents which, if she does not comply, will mean Tribunal will rely on the respondent’s bundle of documents. I remind the claimant again that, regardless of her new applications to amend, regardless of any other applications she may make, she must comply with Case Management Orders I will issue today. If she does not comply there is a real risk a new application to strike out her claim will succeed because there may come a time when a fair hearing is not possible because of the claimant’s conduct and failure to comply with case management orders.[41]Turning to the other ground to strike out: -Failure to comply with Tribunal Order.[42]The Tribunal Order at p.529 required the Claimant to send “all documents in her possession or control relevant to the issues in the case” having seen the Respondents’ disclosure list. She knew this as is evident from her 17 February 2025 letter which requested an extension owing to the “case management order arrived later than originally anticipated, I am unable to meet the original deadlines. Therefore, I respectfully request the following alterations to the original timetable to allow adequate preparation for the final hearing: by 1st May 2025: the claimant to send the respondents a list and copies of all documents” (p.556). The Claimant however failed to comply so is in clear breach of this order, and no explanation has been provided despite the Respondents chasing the matter. (p.586).[43]The Tribunal is not satisfied it is proportionate at this stage to strike out for a failure to comply. As I have already stated, strike out is a last resort. I am giving the claimant a last chance to comply with that order and an order to exchange witness statements and I refuse the application to strike out her claim. Case Number: 2401162/2023 & 2404533/2023 8[44]The applications application dated 1 September 2025 to strike out the response fails. The claimant’s application to strike out the response.[45]I turn to the claimant’s applications to strike out the response dated 29 August 2025 and further clarification in her application dated 1 September 2025.It appears the claimant relies on Rule 38(1) (b) ET Rules of Procedure 2024 although she refers to Rule 37 ET Rules 2013. The same law applies as stated above in this document.[46]It is difficult to understand the claimant’s applications. She makes a series of very serious allegations including: “Deemed Admissions and Failure to Engage”, and of “Fraud, data spoliation” . She states that the Respondents have deliberately destroyed evidence and fabricated work histories in the first application. In the second application she gives further details which include stating “Solicitor Misconduct and Concealment, Pattern of Systemic Fraud and Dishonesty:, Evidence Destruction and Systematic Spoliation and Procedural Sabotage.”[47]The claimant has made these serious generalisedallegations with very little by way of precise detail or information. The Tribunal is a court. Allegations of destruction of evidence or fraud or solicitor misconduct are treated very seriously.[48]In the most specific example which the claimant has given to the Tribunal, there is absolutely no fraud or impropriety. The claimant has suggested that because an application to the Tribunal from the firm on record for the respondent contained the name of a solicitor who has left the firm, that that is somehow evidence of fraud. It absolutely is not.[49]It maybe because the claimant is a litigant in person, she has misunderstood how these things work-that it is the firm that represents the respondent not the individual. However it appears from correspondence that the claimant was well aware that two individual fee earners were involved in the conduct of the litigation. It appears that one of them left the firm but the name of that person who had left the remained on the application. It is very hard to understand why the claimant says that is fraud.[50]The Employment Tribunal understands the claimant is a litigant in person who has disabilities. However the claimant is reminded she must not make very serious allegations of wrongdoing without evidence Case Number: 2401162/2023 & 2404533/2023 9[51]The claimant repeatedly misunderstands and misapplies Henderson v Henderson 1843 in her application. The claimant should not contact the respondent about so called clarification of her claim. The numerous case management orders from the Tribunal and repeated correspondence from ET has made it clear what the claimant needs to do to prepare her case.[52]It is very difficult to understand the rest of the claimant’s application. The respondent’s application to strike out the claim was not an abuse of process. It is a perfectly reasonable course of action of a respondent in the circumstances described above where the claimant has failed to comply with case management orders and behaved as I have described in this document.[53]The claimant has failed to show the respondent has conducted these proceedings unreasonably, or that there was any other breach of Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 and the application therefore fails.[54]Even if I am wrong about that, for the reasons explained above, strike out is a draconian sanction to be exercised sparingly. A fair trial remains possible. The application is refused.[55]I apologise for the delay in producing my written reasons for the refusal to strike out the claim and to strike out the response which were requested by the claimant. This has been due to the pressure of other judicial work.[56]Approved by: