The ET had struck out a claim under Rule 37(1)(b)(c) and (e) of the Employment Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) 2013. It concluded that certain email communications from the Claimant to a witness were "scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious" in that they were designed to intimidate the witness, in breach of a prior order from the tribunal and had made a fair trial impossible. However, two of the emails had been sent before the Claimant had received the ET judgment which explained that such conduct was unacceptable. The judgment warned the Claimant about her conduct and contained three orders designed to moderate her behaviour. Further emails sent by the Claimant after she had received the judgment were in breach of the ET's orders. The Claimant appealed against the strike out.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Whilst the ET should have based its decision on conduct which occurred after, but not before, the judgment had been issued, correspondence sent by the Claimant after the judgment was received breached the orders which required her to refrain from repeating allegations which the ET considered scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious, and to communicate politely with the Respondent's representative. In these circumstances the ET was entitled to strike out the claim and no perversity or error of law had been demonstrated.