Thread by @JasonBraier

1/ A v B - A claim involving a love triangle (actually, more a love square), allegations of manslaughter, intimidatory communications to witnesses, allegations of cover up by the Scottish ET President and strike out! See the EAT judgment here: bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…

#ukemplaw

2/ The claim revolves around A's relationship with C, both doctors employed by B. C is married, but was also in a relationship with A. A considered herself married to C, though at law she isn't. A suspected C entered a relationship with another Dr, SS, & allegedly assaulted her.

3/ Whilst A was prosecuted for assault, she was acquitted. However, in disciplinary proceedings, she was dismissed. She brought claims for unfair dismissal & sex & religious discrimination. Within the claim, A wrote correspondence leading to a strike out application.

4/ A wrote offensive, threatening & intimidating letters to SS and also accused B's solicitor of sexually harassing & stalking her & of torture, among other things. She also wrote to him accusing the Scottish ET President of covering up attempted manslaughter.

5/ A 1st strike out application was rejected. Whilst the EJ found A's behaviour scandalous, vexatious & unreasonable, he wasn't quite convinced a fair trial was not possible. He made 3 orders designed to curtail A's behaviour, including only contacting witnesses with ET approval.

6/ After these orders, C wrote emails to the ET complaining of bullying, harassment & intimidation against B's solicitor, extended those complaints to B's counsel, and said C had committed sexual offences against her. She also wrote that she intended to call C's wife as a witness

7/ An EJ then wrote to C to direct her to desist from making such unfounded allegations, after which the matter came back before the ET on a 2nd strike out application.

8/ Lord Summers set out the case law relied upon, including Force One Utilities v Hatfield, in which a witness physically threatened H in the ET car park, leading to the strike out of the response on the basis that the intimidation of H would deprive him of a fair trial.

9/ The EAT upheld the ET's strike out decision. In doing so, it criticised the ET for including within the reasons for striking out disobedience of the 1st EJ's order predating A's receipt of that order. The EAT considered irrelevant that B's solicitors had given similar warnings

10/ The EAT considered the ET found the emails about calling C's wife were motivated by wanting to destroy their marriage, noting that A had even flown abroad to doorstep C's mother & sister. The EAT thus held A sought to use the tribunal process for extraneous purposes.

11/ Whilst C said the email made him not want to give evidence, the EAT considered his solicitors could reassure him the ET had power to prevent his wife being called in abuse of the tribunal process. The ET should have considered this in asking whether strike out was necessary.

12/ Thus the EAT found A's claim shouldn't have been struck out under Rule 37(1)(b). However, Lord Summers upheld the strike out under r.37(1)(c). Once A had notice of the earlier ET orders, she still persisted in writing to allege sexual harassment etc by B's solicitor & counsel

13/ Correspondence seeking to undermine B's solicitor's ability to represent his client was in clear breach of the ET orders. C had shown herself unable or unwilling to comply with ET orders, & the strike out on this ground was unimpeachable.