header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 July 2008 / Sarah Fitzpatrick , Elisabeth Griffiths
Issue: 7329 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Strike out the bullies

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Those who intimidate witnesses at employment tribunal proceedings could face serious consequences. Sarah Fitzpatrick and Elisabeth Griffiths report

Two recent cases in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) have explored the issue of intimidation of witnesses at employment tribunal proceedings and the consequences of such action. These cases make it clear that the potential consequences are very serious and include the possibility that the offending party's pleadings could be struck out and that any intimidatory conduct could give rise to a further cause of action for the claimant.

Force One Utilities v Hatfield

In Force One Utilities Ltd v Hatfield UKEAT/0048/08, [2008] All ER (D) 130 (May) the claimant, Hatfield, presented a claim for unfair dismissal against the respondent, his ex-employer, Force One Utilities Ltd. Hatfield represented himself at the employment tribunal hearing. It came to light at the hearing in April 2007 that a key witness for the respondent, a Mr Shuter, had made a serious threat of physical harm to Hatfield. Shuter said that Hatfield should “watch how you sleep

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Newcastle & North of England Law Society—Lesley Fairclough

Newcastle & North of England Law Society—Lesley Fairclough

Ward Hadaway partner becomes bicentennial president following regional merger

Devonshires—four promotions

Devonshires—four promotions

Firm promotes four senior associates to partner in annual round

Fieldfisher—John McElroy & Daniel Hayward

Fieldfisher—John McElroy & Daniel Hayward

Co-heads of dispute resolution practice appointed alongside partner promotions

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll