Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs

Case Summary

The claimant brought multiple claims (Claims 3-8) against HMRC involving discrimination, harassment and other allegations. The tribunal found that numerous allegations across the claims should be struck out as an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson rule because they could have been raised in earlier claims through amendment applications. Additionally, a deposit order of £200 was imposed on allegations concerning Sir Jim Harra for lack of reasonable prospects of success.

The tribunal found that numerous allegations constituted an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson rule because they could and should have been raised in earlier claims (Claims 1 or 2) through amendment applications, particularly given the short time gap between the amendment application deadline for those claims and the submission of Claims 3-8. The allegations concerning Sir Jim Harra were ordered to be subject to a deposit because they have little reasonable prospect of success based on the contemporaneous evidence.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claims should be struck out on grounds of abuse of process, cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel or Henderson v Henderson rule
• •Whether allegations should be struck out for time limit breaches
• •Whether allegations concerning Sir Jim Harra have reasonable prospect of success
• •Whether claimant could or should have raised allegations in earlier claims through amendment applications

The full source document is available from the official publication page.