Mr S Gaskell v Virgin Media: 2401577/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim is struck out.[2]The decision to strike out the claim was made under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.[3]The ground for striking out the claim is that it has no reasonable prospect of success.[4]In particular: 4.1. There is no reasonable prospect of the tribunal having jurisdiction to reconsider the judgment of Burnley County Court in case B35YP855; 4.2. There is no reasonable prospect of the tribunal considering the complaints of failure to pay holiday pay, expenses, parking fines and telephone charges. This is because:(a) It is an abuse of process to bring these complaints. They have been the subject of previous judgments in claims 2404733/2012, 2423771/2017 and 2402306/2019.(b) The claimant has no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that it was not reasonably practicable to present these complaints within the statutory time limit, or that the claim was presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable. 4.3 The complaint of disability discrimination and/or victimisation by failing to respond to the claimant’s e-mail of 31 January 2018 will inevitably fail on each of the following grounds: (a) The conduct of litigation in responding or not responding to that letter will be found to be the subject of judicial proceedings immunity; (b) The complaint was presented after the expiry of the statutory time limit and it is not just and equitable for the time limit to be extended;(c) The conduct complained of was not closely connected to the relationship of employment; and(d) There is no reasonable prospect of the tribunal finding that the reason for not replying to the letter was that the claimant had done a protected act or that he had a disability. 4.4 There is no reasonable prospect of the claimant succeeding in his complaint that the respondent took advantage of the claimant because he had a disability by seeking “compensation from the court” following the dismissal of claim B35YP855 by Burnley County Court. This is because: (a) The alleged conduct will inevitably be found to be the subject of judicial proceedings immunity; (b) The tribunal will inevitably find that the complaint was presented after the expiry of the statutory time limit and it is not just and equitable for the time limit to be extended; (c) There is no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the conduct complained of was closely connected to the relationship of employment; and (d) There is no reasonable prospect of the tribunal finding that the reason why the respondent took that step was because the claimant was disabled. 4.5 The complaint that the respondent is liable for accidental injuries caused by the termination of his employment has no reasonable prospect of success, in that: (a) The tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider such a complaint; (b) The tribunal will inevitably find that the complaint was presented after the expiry of the statutory time limit, that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit and, in any event, the claim was not presented within a reasonable period of time after the time limit expired; and (c) The claimant has no reasonable prospect of showing that the termination of his employment caused the accident. Employment Judge Horne Date: 21 September 2022 27 September 2022 Note – Reasons for this judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party makes a request in writing within 14 days of the date when this judgment is register which is visible to internet searches.