Employment Judge FreshwaterIn person for claimantMr T Brown (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 11 February 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The claims are struck out in their entirety under Rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
REASONS
[1]The claimant was a delivery driver for the respondent. Early conciliation commenced on 20 March 2024 and ACAS issued the requisite certificate on 1 May 2024. The claimant submitted a claim form to this tribunal on 16 May 2024. The respondent submitted grounds of resistance on 11 July 2024.[2]The Tribunal wrote to the parties on 20 June 2025 sending a notification that a public preliminary hearing would take place on 24 November 2025. The notice of hearing explained that the tribunal would consider whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process. This was because the respondent, in its grounds of resistance, had said that the claimant had already brought a substantially similar claim before the Central London Employment Tribunal which he had withdrawn. That claim had been part of a case involving multiple claimants against the respondent.[3]The open preliminary hearing took place by CVP. I was referred to an electronic bundle of documents and the respondent’s electronic bundle of legal authorities. I heard oral submissions from both parties. Judgment was reserved. Submissions[4]The respondent submitted that the first and second claims brought by the claimant were substantially the same, and that the first claim was still the subject of an ongoing procedure in the Central London Employment Tribunal. It was said that the claimant had attempted to expand his claim before this tribunal, but that the expansion included complaints over which the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction. It was said that significant prejudice would be caused to the respondent in dealing with the same claims in two different tribunals. The case in London is ongoing because it is being pursued by the other claimants.[5]The claimant submitted that he had brought a fresh claim to the Watford Employment Tribunal because he had not, as of 24 November 2025, been provided with a formal notification that the withdrawal of his claim had happened and therefore had not had the opportunity to apply for a reconsideration. It was accepted by the respondent that no such notification had been sent to either party regarding the withdrawal of the claim. In addition, the claimant said that his claim before this tribunal was not substantially the same. He explained that he had spent a great deal of time compiling data which he said supported his case, and that the cases were not identical because until now he had not been able to accurately identify the entirety of his complaints. He said that the London claim lacked this evidence. He did not accept any prejudice to the respondent and said that he has acted in good faith. Law[6]Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 states: “(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)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, response or reply (or the part to be struck out). (2) A claim, response or reply may not be struck out unless the party advancing it has been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations, either in writing or, if requested by the party, at a hearing.”[7]In the case of Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 A.C. 1, the House of Lords held that there was a public interest in the finality of litigation but that whether there was an abuse of process should be judged broadly on the merits of the case taking account of all public and private matters involved and all the facts of the case. The crucial question was whether the claimant was, in all the circumstances, misusing or abusing the process of the court.[8]In the case of Szucs v Greensquareaccord Ltd [2025] EAT 110 the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an Employment Tribunal had not erred in law by striking out a second claim as an abuse of process where the claimant had made the second claim before the first claim had been determined. The claimant should have applied to amend the first claim to include the second claim.
Findings
[9]The Claimant brought a claim in the London Central Employment Tribunal, under case reference 2214697/2023. The Claimant was represented in respect of his earlier claim by the law firm Leigh Day, and his claim was brought as part of a group being case managed together under the name Mr I A Manea & Ors v Just Eat.co.uk Ltd (2201245/2023 & Ors). The claims are all brought by Just Eat delivery drivers claiming that they are or were employees and that they are owed holiday pay and other payments.[10]Leigh Day withdrew the Claimant’s earlier claim on 11 October 2023, writing to the London Central Employment Tribunal on that date to say that the Claimant had requested the withdrawal.[11]On 19 March 2024, in response to correspondence from the Claimant on 15 February 2024, Employment Judge Khan informed the Claimant that: “The claimant’s claim was formally withdrawn on his behalf by his then legal representatives on 11 October 2023. This withdrawal is being processed by the Tribunal and a judgment dismissing the claim shall be promulgated in due course. The claimant will have 14 days from the date that this judgment is sent to the parties to apply for reconsideration when he will be able to resend his email dated 15 February 2024 together with any other grounds on which he wishes to rely in making such an application”[12]Neither party has received any correspondence from the Central London Employment Tribunal to say that the withdrawal has been processed.[13]On 16 May 2024, the claimant commenced this claim. The basis of the claims in both tribunals relates to the employment status of the claimant and whether he is owed holiday pay and other payments. In the claim form before this tribunal, the claimant raised concerns beyond his employment status that cannot amount to a complaint that the employment tribunal has jurisdiction to determine. For example, issues around “excessive control” and “failure to uphold the duty of care” towards delivery drivers.
Conclusions
[14]I find that the claim before this Tribunal is much the same as the one made to the Central London Employment Tribunal. The differences relied upon by the claimant are, in fact, the evidence he would use to support his claim. The substance of the complaints themselves and the types of claim made are not different.[15]No judgment formally dismissing the claim in Central London has yet been issued. The claim is still, therefore, in existence in some form. Once received, the claimant may apply for reconsideration of the decision. It will be for that tribunal to decide whether it is in the interests of justice to do so. I therefore make no findings about the reasons behind the withdrawal of the claim in Central London or whether or not a reconsideration should or should not be granted. That is not the decision before me.[16]Whilst it is unfortunate that the claimant has not been able to apply for the reconsideration of this claim, it is still the case that the tribunal process should not be circumvented by the attempt to bring the same claim in a different Tribunal region.[17]The claim is therefore struck out on the basis that the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted by the claimant was scandalous, unreasonable or vexations. This is the appropriate wording under Rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules to cover an abuse of the tribunal process in these circumstances.[18]I am satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claim under Rule 38 apply, and that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 to strike out the claim. This is because in order to deal with cases fairly and justly, a claimant should not be permitted to avoid the reconsideration of a case that is before a tribunal in another region.[19]The claim is therefore struck out. Approved by: