Waterfront Obtains Strike Out of Vexatious Employment Claims

Our client was a large UK employer operating in a complex organisational environment with established management structures.

The client faced claims of constructive unfair dismissal alongside allegations of age, race, disability, and sex discrimination, as well as victimisation. The claimant was very short‑serving and had objected early in their employment to taking instructions from colleagues and managers. After making unprofessional remarks and raising a grievance, the claimant resigned before that process could be completed. The claims were denied in full and were viewed by the client as baseless and vexatious. They were vague, lacking in detail, and conducted aggressively by an unrepresented claimant, creating procedural disruption and the risk of significant cost if allowed to proceed to a final hearing.

Given the weakness of the claims, we advised a strategic decision to invest resources early by applying for strike‑out or, alternatively, deposit orders. We explained that strike‑out in discrimination claims can be difficult, particularly where a claimant is unrepresented, but advised that the claimant’s conduct and the lack of merit justified taking this approach. We also advised that settlement was unlikely to be productive due to the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour. A full defence to hearing would have involved substantial time and cost. As proceedings progressed, the claimant’s conduct deteriorated further, including provocative and rude communications directed at the client, its advisers, and ultimately the Tribunal. At the preliminary hearing, the Tribunal struck out all claims based on conduct, noting that it would otherwise have struck them out or imposed deposit orders due to their lack of prospects.

All claims were struck out in full at an early stage of the proceedings. The client avoided the majority of the projected legal costs associated with defending the claims through to a final hearing. The outcome also confirmed the client’s position that the claims were without merit and allowed the business to move forward without further disruption.

Jamie Webster, who was supported by Anthony Purvis on this transaction, commented: “This case was unusual due to the claimant’s extreme conduct and the complete absence of a legal basis for the claims. I was pleased to secure an outcome that meant our client did not have to spend further time and money engaging with the proceedings.”