In Chidzoy v BBC, the EAT has upheld an employment tribunal's decision to strike out a claim because the Claimant was overheard by the BBC’s lawyers discussing her case with a journalist during an adjournment while she was still under oath.
The Claimant had been warned not to discuss her evidence or any aspect of the case with any person during the adjournment. The Claimant had admitted that the conversation with the journalist included some reference to her evidence but had not brought the matter to the tribunal’s attention and her account of events had not been consistent.
The EAT found that the tribunal had followed a fair process and it was best placed to assess the impact of the claimant’s conduct on the fair disposal of her claim.
The EAT decided that the tribunal was entitled to conclude that:
- Ms Chidzoy’s conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances
- It no longer had trust in her truthfulness and this meant that it could no longer conduct a fair trial;
- it was proportionate to strike out the claim
- the concern over the Claimant’s veracity would also be a problem for a different tribunal, and would continue to be an issue in the proceedings.
This case goes to show that while tribunals are understandably reluctant to strike out cases, parties to proceedings and witnesses who disregard warnings given to them individually by the tribunals are very likely to face legal sanction.