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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll