“Blatant Abuse” of Tribunal Process: False Claims Cost Claimant £20K in Compensation

In Mr M Kumi v Edwardian Pastoria Hotels Ltd, the claimant’s case was struck out under Rule 37 in the employment tribunal after it was held he’d been making false claims. During proceedings, the tribunal learned he had a history of raising bogus claims and made a costs order for him to pay the respondent £20,000.

Read on as we discuss the case facts and the potential consequences if an employee were to falsely claim. We’ll examine the importance of being truthful in court and the steps individuals can take if their case is legitimate.

If you have questions or believe your employment rights have been breached, please contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are employment law experts, and following a quick chat, we can provide specialist, tailored advice.

To learn more about the help we provide, simply:

The Facts in Mr M Kumi v Edwardian Pastoria Hotels Ltd

Background to False Claims

Mr M Kumi (“The Claimant”) began working for Edwardian Pastoria Hotels Ltd (“The Respondent”) on 24 July 2023. Following five days of employment, he was dismissed on 28 July.

Some time passed before any issues were raised— however, on 2 October, the claimant sent a grievance letter to the respondent. It was a 27-page complaint alleging breaches of the Equality Act 2010 and Employment Rights Act 1996. 

While the claimant’s letter mentioned investigating the concerns he’d raised, the employment tribunal highlighted his clear intentions to negotiate a settlement— which at the time amounted to £18,000.

Then, four months after his dismissal, the claimant initiated employment tribunal proceedings on 29 November. He brought claims of unfair dismissal and detriment after making a protected disclosure, as well as discrimination and harassment.

Tribunal Learns of Claimant’s Covert Recordings

A preliminary hearing took place on 17 April 2024, during which it was established that the issues arose during the claimant’s first night shift. The tribunal heard how the claimant made an eight-hour covert recording of the shift, insisting he’d experienced discriminatory conduct.

However, the respondent asserted that they’d acted lawfully and dismissed the claimant because of his behaviour during his probationary period. They specifically referred to this night shift, alleging the claimant had a pattern of making such claims after short periods of employment.

Respondent Applies to have “False Claims” Struck Out

Due to the complex nature of the claimant’s case, a second preliminary hearing occurred on 16 July. Here, the tribunal sought to finalise the claims being brought, which they said included “60 allegations of direct race discrimination alone”. Also, during this hearing, the respondent applied to have the claimant’s case struck out, believing it to amount to no more than false claims.

Although the claimant reportedly sought to settle the matter outside of court, the respondent stated that such a resolution would require the claimant to lower their expectations. This was because, at that time, the claimant had assessed the value of their case at £27,000.

Tribunal Favours Respondent’s Reliability

A final preliminary hearing took place on 21 November. While the claimant attempted to postpone proceedings further, the tribunal found no reasonable justification, believing he only wanted to delay to allow him more time to negotiate a settlement. As a result, the tribunal decided to go on as planned.

Following proceedings, the tribunal initially addressed the claimant’s conduct. They noted that he frequently interrupted the hearing and his submissions exceeded the agreed 20-minute time limit by an additional 20 minutes.

The tribunal then turned to the claimant’s case. They explained they had “serious concerns about the reliability of the claimant’s evidence”. This was particularly because he was “evasive” during questioning and regularly went off on tangents.

Furthermore, throughout the hearing, there were several instances where the claimant was found to have made incorrect assertions. One example included when he alleged that he didn’t know about the respondent’s application to have the case struck out.

Conversely, the respondent was found to be consistent and reliable throughout. As a result, wherever conflicting accounts existed, the tribunal favoured the respondents.

Costs Order of £20,000 is Made

During the assessment, the tribunal discussed both the claimant’s previous employment and that with the respondent. On his CV, the claimant avoided providing specifics about where he’d worked—which included short periods of employment, followed by tribunal claims.

Additionally, it was found that from the moment the claimant handed his CV to the respondent until his dismissal, he made at least 31 covert recordings. Since he couldn’t explain why he’d made recordings before his employment commenced, the tribunal believed he was trying to ‘stitch up’ his employer.

The respondent offered a similar view, insisting that in some recordings, the claimant guided employee conversations toward potentially litigious subjects. In the tribunal’s view, this was a further attempt to “entrap” the respondent to aid his false claims.

Then, when the claimant’s dismissal was discussed, the respondent explained that it arose after a night shift during which he’d been argumentative and confrontational with other staff. While the tribunal made no specific findings on this, they acknowledged that he’d demonstrated similar behaviour during proceedings.

Consequently, during their conclusions, the tribunal held the claimant’s case was both vexatious and scandalous. They found that from his current behaviour and history of claims, he had been unreasonable and was trying to “extort money out of the respondent”. As a result, under Rule 37 in the employment tribunal, they struck out his false claims and ordered him to pay the respondent £20,000 in costs.

False Claims: What is a Vexatious Claim in Employment Law?

A vexatious claim, sometimes informally labelled a bogus claim, refers to a claim made without a legitimate basis. Often, such claims arise to harass or inconvenience an employer rather than resolve an actual dispute. Like the above case, vexatious claims can be characterised by their repetitive nature and malicious intent, such as trying to extort money.

What are the Consequences of False Claims?

Tribunals take it very seriously when an individual is found to be making false claims. This is because such cases waste judicial resources and cause unnecessary distress to the respondent.

Consequently, if an employee were to make a false claim and get caught, they could face legal penalties, such as the costs order Mr Kumi received. They could also face criminal perjury charges, reputational damage in the tribunal impacting future claims, and employment repercussions.

Upholding Integrity: The Key to Fair Outcomes in Employment Tribunals

It goes without saying that it’s essential to be honest during employment tribunal proceedings. Not only will this help individuals avoid legal penalties, but it will also ensure a just outcome is found.

When a party is ruled to be inconsistent, this will impact their credibility and the tribunal’s judgment of their accounts. Therefore, to ensure the tribunal can determine what happened and provide an accurate judgment, honesty must be maintained.

Navigating Employment Claims

While false claims are to be avoided, those with legitimate ones shouldn’t be put off seeking justice. If an individual believes their employment rights have been breached, they should first consider internal dispute resolutions. Among other things, this may involve filing a formal grievance.

Should the matter remain unresolved, the individual could try early conciliation through ACAS before initiating employment tribunal proceedings if that doesn’t work. To bring such claims, strict time limits and eligibility criteria would have to be adhered to.

Once a hearing’s been set, the individual should gather relevant evidence, whether alone or with a legal specialist’s assistance. When the hearing comes around, the individual must then present their case honestly and await the tribunal’s decision. If the individual succeeds with their claim, among other things, they could be awarded compensation.

How Redmans Solicitors Can Assist

If you have any questions or want help with your claim, please reach out to Redmans Solicitors. As experts in the employment law sector, we can provide expert advice and guide you through the legal process.

To begin: