header-logo header-logo

10 July 2008 / Sarah Fitzpatrick , Elisabeth Griffiths
Issue: 7329 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Strike out the bullies

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll