EAT Examines Fairness, Construction of Claim Forms, and Abuse of Process in B King v Thales DIS UK Ltd Case

Citation: [2024] EAT 34
Judgment on


The case of B King v Thales DIS UK Ltd [2024] EAT 34 involves a series of appeals brought by Mr. B King (the appellant) against Thales DIS UK Ltd (the respondent). It encompasses substantial legal discussions on fairness in the conduct of hearings, construction of claim forms, and the doctrine of abuse of process. This article delves into the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) analysis and application of legal principles relevant to employment law and procedural fairness.

Key Facts

Mr. B King, a former employee of Thales DIS UK Ltd with learning difficulties and mental health conditions, initially brought a claim for unfair dismissal which was dismissed for being submitted out of time. He later submitted a second claim alleging sex discrimination, and in the course of proceedings, he sought to add a claim for disability discrimination. The legal discourse centers on whether the second claim included an implied claim of disability discrimination and whether it constituted an abuse of process due to potential overlap with the first claim.

The EAT, presided by His Honour Judge James Tayler, focused on several legal principles throughout the judgment:

Fairness in Conducting Hearings

The EAT underscored the importance of procedural adjustments in hearings involving vulnerable individuals. The tribunal is obliged to ensure substantive fairness, allowing parties to effectively participate and witnesses to provide reliable evidence. This may warrant a ground rules hearing or other case management decisions. The case relies on precedents such as Buckle v Ashford and St Peter’s Hospital NHS Trust and Habib v Dave Whelan Sports, emphasizing the adjustment of court procedures for vulnerable witnesses.

Construction of Claim Forms

The tribunal examined the contents of the claim form to ascertain whether a claim for disability discrimination was implicitly included. The established guidance from cases like McLeary v One Housing Group Ltd and Pranczk v Hampshire CC is that claim forms need to reflect the essence of the claim, allowing for the fact that litigants in person may not use formal legal language.

Abuse of Process

The doctrine of abuse of process was a critical focal point. Here, the pertinent legal test originates from Henderson v Henderson, refined in Johnson v Gore Wood and Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners. The principle asserts that claimants should not be vexed twice for the same matter, and claims that could have been brought in earlier proceedings should have been so, barring special circumstances. The tribunal assesses whether the party’s actions amount to unjust harassment or misuse of court processes.


The EAT ruled that the Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in its approach to abuse of process, leading to the dismissal of the sex discrimination claim and denial of an amendment to add a disability discrimination claim. The EAT found that the ET made a misstep by not considering whether the appellant should have raised the claim in the first instance and if pursuing it in the second claim was abusive. The considerations should encompass public and private interests, all case facts, and whether the action constitutes “unjust harassment.”

The EAT remitted the matter to a new tribunal for a fresh assessment, tasking it with considering all relevant factors, including the precise nature of Mr. King’s claims, the reasons for not bringing those claims earlier, the impact of his mental health conditions, and the possible prejudice to Thales.


In B King v Thales DIS UK Ltd, the EAT provided a pivotal clarification on the breadth of discretion and the merits-based judgment required in considering whether a case is an abuse of process. It articulated the need for tribunals to accommodate vulnerable litigants and imbued the understanding that, within the legal framework, the completeness and clarity of claim forms are paramount. The decision undertakes to balance the finality and economy of litigation with fairness and access to justice for all parties. This case emphasizes that legal proceedings must advance in a manner empathetic to the vulnerabilities of individuals, without compromising the procedural rigor essential to justice.

Related Summaries