Key Facts
- •Rev. Dr. James George Hargreaves (Claimant/Appellant) appealed an Employment Tribunal decision striking out his claims against Evolve Housing & Support and Simon McGrath (Respondents) for scandalous, unreasonable, and vexatious conduct.
- •Hargreaves's claims alleged discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal.
- •The Tribunal found Hargreaves intended to use the proceedings to damage the Respondents' business and political careers, weaponizing the process for a personal vendetta.
- •Hargreaves's conduct included threats of a relentless media campaign, inflammatory emails, and leaflets containing damaging and misleading information.
- •The Tribunal concluded a fair trial was impossible due to Hargreaves's conduct and struck out the claims.
Legal Principles
Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 allows for striking out a claim if the proceedings have been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable, or vexatious manner, or if a fair hearing is no longer possible.
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 37(1)
The test for striking out under Rule 37(1)(b) requires establishing that the conduct was scandalous, unreasonable, or vexatious; it resulted in the impossibility of a fair trial; and the strike-out sanction was proportionate. Lesser sanctions should be considered first.
Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140; Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology [2009] EWCA Civ 96
The appeal court applies a high threshold, only interfering if there is an error of legal principle or perversity in the outcome.
Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Limited and Others [2022] ICR 335
A claim should not be struck out on account of conduct unless that conduct means or has created a real risk that the claim cannot be fairly tried.
T v Royal Bank of Scotland [2023] EAT 119
The test for apparent bias is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility that the Tribunal was biased.
Porter v McGill [2001] UKHL 67
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed in part.
The EAT found the Tribunal erred in concluding a fair trial was impossible solely based on assumed effects of Hargreaves's conduct, without evidence from witnesses of intimidation. The strike-out was deemed disproportionate.
Claims reinstated and remitted to the Tribunal for a preliminary hearing.
The EAT found the Tribunal's conclusion that a fair trial was impossible to be an error of principle or perverse. The strike-out sanction was deemed disproportionate and punitive.