In the UK’s employment law landscape, the right to bring a claim to an employment tribunal is a fundamental protection for workers. However, when an employee finds themselves on the receiving end of multiple strike-outs under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, the consequences can be far-reaching and complex. This article explores the impact of such a situation on an employee’s ability to seek redress for legitimate grievances in the future.
Understanding Rule 37
Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure grants employment tribunals the power to strike out all or part of a claim or response. This can occur on several grounds, including:
- The claim or response is scandalous, misconceived, or vexatious.
- The manner in which the proceedings have been conducted has been scandalous, unreasonable, or vexatious.
- The claim or response has no reasonable prospect of success.
- There has been a failure to comply with an order or practice direction.
- It has not been actively pursued.
- It is no longer possible to have a fair hearing.
While Rule 37 serves an important purpose in managing the tribunal’s caseload and preventing abuse of the system, its application can have significant consequences for claimants.
The Impact of Multiple Strike-Outs
When an employee has had multiple claims struck out under Rule 37, they may face several challenges:
- Credibility Concerns
- Financial Consequences
- Emotional Toll
- Potential for Cost Orders
- Labelling as a Vexatious Litigant
Navigating Future Grievances
For employees who have experienced multiple strike-outs, bringing legitimate grievances forward can become challenging. However, it’s not impossible. Here are some considerations:
- Seek Legal Advice
- Thorough Preparation
- Be Aware of the Digital Divide
- Consider Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Address Previous Strike-Outs
Conclusion
While multiple strike-outs under Rule 37 can create significant hurdles for employees seeking to address workplace grievances, it’s important to remember that each case is judged on its own merits. By understanding the implications of previous strike-outs, seeking appropriate legal advice, and thoroughly preparing any future claims, employees can still pursue legitimate grievances through the employment tribunal system.
The key is to approach the process with caution, diligence, and a clear understanding of the potential challenges. Remember, the goal of the employment tribunal system is to provide access to justice for all parties involved in employment disputes. Despite past setbacks, this fundamental right remains available to those with genuine claims.
#EmploymentTribunal #Rule37 #WorkplaceRights #UKEmploymentLaw #LegalAdvice #EmployeeRights
References
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-tribunal-procedure-rules
- Blake Morgan. (2023). “Strike out of Employment Tribunal claims: useful guidance from the EAT”. Available at: https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/strike-out-of-employment-tribunal-claims-useful-guidance-from-the-eat/
- Barwell, J. (2024, June 12). “The Psychological Toll of Legal Battles: A Litigant in Person’s Journey”. LinkedIn. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/psychological-toll-legal-battles-litigant-persons-journey-barwell-3eore/
- Barwell, J. (2024, July 25). “The Art of Striking Out: How Employers Exploit Legal Tactics in UK Employment Tribunals”. LinkedIn. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/art-striking-out-how-employers-exploit-legal-tactics-uk-john-barwell-hhipe/
- Barwell, J. (2024, July 23). “Digital Divide: Are Litigants in Person Getting Equal Access to Justice?”. LinkedIn. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-divide-litigants-person-getting-equal-access-justice-barwell-21dbe
- Barwell, J. (2024, July 24). “The Digital Divide in UK Courts: Navigating System Access as a Litigant in Person (LiP)”. LinkedIn. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-divide-uk-courts-navigating-system-access-litigant-barwell-vlkue/
- HM Courts & Tribunals Service. (2021). HMCTS Reform Programme. GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hmcts-reform-programme
- The Legal Education Foundation. (2023). Digital Justice: HMCTS Data Strategy and Delivering Access to Justice. Available at: https://research.thelegaleducationfoundation.org/research-learning/funded-research/digital-justice
- Citizens Advice. (2024). Going to court without a solicitor. Available at: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/taking-legal-action/going-to-court-without-a-solicitor/
- LawWorks. (2024). Free Legal Answers. Available at: https://www.lawworks.org.uk/
- Advocate (formerly Bar Pro Bono Unit). (2024). Available at: https://weareadvocate.org.uk/
Public Interest Disclosure Statement
This statement outlines the principles guiding disclosures made in my articles, which aim to serve the public interest by promoting transparency and accountability.
Guiding Principles
- Public Interest: Disclosures are made to serve the public interest, inspired by the principles underlying the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
- Ethical Reporting: I strive to adhere to ethical reporting practices to the best of my ability as a non-professional writer.
- Factual Accuracy: All information disclosed is factual and evidence-based to the best of my knowledge.
- Good Faith: Disclosures are made without malice and with a genuine belief in their truth and public importance.
- Proportionality: The extent of disclosure is proportionate to the perceived wrongdoing or risk.
- Confidentiality: Sources and sensitive information are protected where appropriate.
Legal Considerations
Disclosures are made with consideration of:
- Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR: Personal data is processed in compliance with data protection principles.
- Defamation Act 2013:
- Truth: Factual statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
- Honest Opinion: Opinions are clearly identified and based on facts.
- Public Interest: Publication is believed to be in the public interest.
- Human Rights Act 1998: Disclosures exercise the right to freedom of expression, balanced against other rights.
Ethical Standards
While not a professional journalist, I strive to maintain high ethical standards in my reporting, including:
- Verifying information to the best of my ability.
- Seeking comment from those involved where possible.
- Being transparent about my methods and limitations.
Disclaimer
This statement does not claim legal protections specific to employee whistleblowers or professional journalists. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy and ethical compliance, this is not legal advice. I am not a legal professional or a qualified journalist. Legal and ethical advice will be sought in cases of uncertainty.
By adhering to these principles, I aim to make responsible disclosures that serve the public interest while respecting legal and ethical obligations.