Unactionable Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal

OUTCOME: Struck Out

Case Numbers: 6016337/2025 6023609/2025

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant

Respondents

[APPELLANT] v 1. [NAME] [NAME] 2. [NAME] [NAME] at: Watford (by CVP)

On: 25 March 2026

Before: Employment Judge Wyeth

Appearances

For the Claimant: [redacted]

No attendance For the Respondents: [redacted] For the [COMPANY]: Miss [COUNSEL] (Trainee Solicitor)

JUDGMENT

1. The claimant’s claims (claim numbers 6016337/2025 against the first respondent and 6023609/2025 against the second respondent) are struck out and dismissed in their entirety as the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any such complaints.

REASONS

1. On 6 May 2025, the claimant submitted a claim form to the tribunal which was allocated the claim number 6016337/2025. In the claim form she named the first respondent as the individual against whom she wished to pursue a claim. The address she provided for the first respondent was the [COMPANY], Reading, England [POSTCODE]. At section 8.1 of the claim form the claimant ticked the boxes indicating that she intended to pursue a claim for race and/or religion or belief discrimination. She also

Case Numbers: 6016337/2025 6023609/2025

2 indicated that she was making another type of claim and gave the following narrative: “Actions that had been discriminately acted continued to affect. Gross discrimination and racial” (sic). Need it be said, that narrative is incomprehensible. In box 8.2 the claimant states the following: “She did something wrong in Reading town apologised that she tried to set me up later unecessarily escalated and still bully me on top. Even after evidencing events that occured despite that I did not hold grudges on her proceed with hate speech“ (sic). Again that text is incoherent.

2. There is further incoherent narrative in Box 9.2 which makes mention of harassment and racial prejudice “even at work and academic” because the first respondent apparently worked with an associate Professor.

3. The [COMPANY] submitted a response on 25 June 2025 indicating that it had not been named as a respondent in the case but its address had been provided and did not wish to be added as a party. Nevertheless, the University indicated that neither the claimant nor the first respondent had ever been employees at the [COMPANY] save for the fact that the first respondent had held a campus job at the University between 1 June and 30 November 2022. At the hearing today Miss [NAME] representing the University explained that the named first respondent held worker status during that period at the University but has not been a student or a worker of the university since.

4. The University understandably indicated that it should not receive any further communication or correspondence in relation to the claim and it should not be joined or cited as a party to the claim.

5. On 5 July 2025 the claimant submitted a single page letter and requested it to be treated as further details of the claim. Once again the content of that document is incoherent and it is not possible to ascertain an actionable claim from the narrative. Notably the claimant makes reference to a data breach and hate speech and refers to there being video evidence dated 28 November 2021. That would suggest that any conduct the claimant is referring to occurred prior to that date, which would be significantly outside of the time limit for pursuing any actionable claim in any event.

6. On 25 June 2025 the claimant submitted a different claim against the second respondent which has been allocated claim number 6023609/2025. At section 8 the claimant had ticked the box indicating that she was making a whistleblowing claim. Within box 8.2 she included narrative that was again incomprehensible and incoherent. On any objective reading it is not possible to ascertain from what is written any actionable claim either against the second respondent or the [COMPANY] that might possibly fall within the jurisdiction of this tribunal.

7. The University submitted a response to that claim on 10 September 2025 indicating that it was not a named respondent in the case but the claimant had once again used its address for the second respondent named in this claim. As with the claim against the first respondent, the University

Case Numbers: 6016337/2025 6023609/2025

3 contended that it should not receive any further correspondence in relation to this other claim and should not be joined or cited as a party. The University confirmed that neither the claimant nor the second respondent were (or ever had been) employees of the University. At the hearing today. Miss [RESPONDENT] explained that the named second respondent was not immediately identifiable as a student of the university, although she accepted it might be that a match could not be identified if the second respondent’s name had been spelled incorrectly.

8. On 12 October 2025 the claimant submitted a two page document in bold type in which she indicated that she agreed that she was not an employee of the [COMPANY]. Once again, the content of that document was difficult to understand and it was not possible to ascertain an actionable claim that fell within the jurisdiction of this tribunal from the narrative provided. I also note that the claimant made reference to the time of the events occurring being April 2022 which is, of course, significantly outside of the time within which an actionable claim should be brought before this jurisdiction.

9. By a letter dated 15 October 2025, the University requested the two claims be considered together. The claimant responded to that communication on 16 October 2025 and thus there can be no doubt that she did receive that communication.

10. Furthermore, as well as writing to both parties on 3 February 2026 to indicate that the claims would be heard together, the tribunal also wrote to the claimant on that date requesting that she: a) provide correct addresses for the two respondents to enable the tribunal to send the claim forms to them; and b) explain why the claimant considered that her claims come within the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal given that they must relate to a contract under which work is carried out in order to come within this jurisdiction. The claimant was given 14 days to respond.

Accordingly, a response should have been filed with a tribunal by 17 February 2026. No such response has been received.

11. At the hearing today neither the claimant nor the two named respondents attended. The absence of the two respondents is unsurprising if the claim could not be served on them at an appropriate address. My clerk attempted to contact the claimant on the mobile number she has provided but a message was received indicating that the number was no longer obtainable.

12. Having heard representations from Miss [NAME] on behalf of the [COMPANY], I am satisfied that neither of the claimant nor the two named respondents were ever employees or workers of the University, save for the first respondent who was a worker between the period of June and November 2022. Furthermore, it is impossible to ascertain any actionable claim from the claim forms that have been submitted by the claimant and certainly not one that falls within the jurisdiction of this tribunal.

Case Numbers: 6016337/2025 6023609/2025

4 13. I therefore conclude that the claimant’s claims are not matters than can be advanced in this tribunal and must be dismissed. Accordingly, each claim is struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Approved by:

Employment Judge Wyeth

Date: 25 March 2026

Sent to the parties on: 11 May 2026

For the Tribunal Office .