The summary below is taken from the judgement

The Appellant’s claim against four individual Respondents was struck out by the Employment Tribunal on the grounds that the Appellant had conducted the proceedings in a scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious manner by conducting a social media campaign on LinkedIn, and that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The Appellant appealed and the matter was listed for an inter partes preliminary hearing. No supplementary bundle of required documents was prepared before the preliminary hearing. The Appellant submitted a 300-page skeleton argument created using ChatGPT. At the hearing, with the assistance of ELAAS counsel, the Appellant advanced submissions on a single ground of appeal concerning whether he had received fair notice that the strike out application was to be determined, and whether he had a fair opportunity to prepare and participate. It was confirmed that the Appellant did not pursue other grounds. Directions were made for the preparation of a supplementary bundle. After the hearing, the Appellant applied to resile from that position; he wanted to pursue a further ground concerning whether the Tribunal had weighed into the balance his article 6 and article 10 ECHR rights when deciding to strike out the claim. Both before and after the hearing, the Appellant made numerous (sometimes repetitive) applications and engaged in excessive correspondence with the EAT.

Held:

1.The single ground of appeal pursued orally at the preliminary hearing was reasonably arguable and would proceed to a full hearing. The Appellant’s application to resile from the position taken at the preliminary hearing and to rely on an additional ground of appeal was dismissed. NowickaPrice v Chief Constable of Gwent Constabulary UKEAT/0268/09 considered and applied.

1. The Appellant’s application for disclosure was dismissed and certified totally without merit. The Appellant’s applications to review orders of the EAT were dismissed.

1. All litigants before the EAT, whether represented or not, must comply with the EAT Rules and Practice Direction (“PD”). Procedural requirements for skeleton arguments, set out at PD§11.6.6, must be rigorously observed. In appropriate cases, skeleton arguments that do not comply will be rejected (see PD§11.6.6(a)) or other sanctions imposed (see PD§11.6.7).

1. All litigants and their representatives, including litigants without representation, should be mindful of the risks posed by the use of generative AI when creating documents for submission to the EAT. They must take personal responsibility to ensure, at a minimum, that documents (i) comply with applicable procedural rules, (ii) have been checked as thoroughly as the litigant or representative is reasonably able for accuracy, ensuring that the factual, evidential and legal position is not misstated and the EAT is not misled, and (iii) contain only relevant points, with the focus being on the central or best arguments, presented in an easily comprehensible manner and avoiding undue repetition. It is not acceptable to submit documents created by generative AI without them being checked, or to attempt to place the onus for checking them on the opposing party. R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] 1 WLR 5147 and other authorities considered and applied.

1. Case management directions were made for the full hearing of the appeal in light of the conduct of proceedings to date. An order was made requiring all applications to be made on the form at Annex 2 of the PD, failing which they would not be considered. If excessive correspondence that adversely affects the EAT’s resources continues, consideration will be given to an order limiting the Appellant’s ability to communicate with the EAT by email. J v K [2019] ICR 815 and PD§1.9.2 considered.