e.surv Ltd

Case Summary

This is a procedural hearing before Employment Judge McCooey on 18 March 2026 concerning strike-out applications by the respondent e.surv Ltd regarding Claims 2 and 3, alleged to be an abuse of process and/or vexatious. The tribunal refused both strike-out applications, finding no clear-cut case for striking out and applying the principles of caution against striking out discrimination claims before a full merits hearing. Further matters including jurisdiction and time-bar issues were deferred to a later case management order.

The tribunal refused the strike-out applications because the claims were not clear-cut cases suitable for strike out. The tribunal applied the established principles of caution against striking out discrimination claims before a full merits hearing, as set out in Anyanwu and Bahad, and found no evidence that the claimant was misusing or abusing the process.

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

• •Whether respondent's application to strike out Claim 2 on grounds of abuse of process should be granted
• •Whether respondent's application to strike out Claim 3 on grounds of abuse of process and/or scandalous or vexatious should be granted
• •Jurisdiction and time-bar issues for claim 6018893/2024
• •Consolidation of claims

Case No: 6018893/2024 6006286/2025 6009466/2025 PHCM Order 1 of 6 September 2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G Atwal Respondent: e.surv Ltd Heard at: in public by CVP On: 18 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge McCooey Appearances For the claimant: In person For the respondent: Mrs Holden, Counsel Judgment having been given orally to the parties on 18 March 2026 and reasons having been requested orally by the respondent at that hearing, in accordance with Rule 60(3) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024: JUDGMENT 1. The respondent’s application for strike out in respect of Claim 2 on the grounds it is an abuse of process is refused. 2. The respondent’s application for strike out in respect of Claim 3 on the grounds it is an abuse of process and/or scandalous or vexatious is refused. WRITTEN REASONS Procedural history 3. This PPH was listed to consider the following applications indicated in a CMO dated 25 October 2025 (as amended), as follows: i. The respondent's application to strike out claim 6018893/2024 for the reasons set out in the response to that claim; ii. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claim 6018893/2024 because it is time-barred - was the claim presented in time and if not should time be extended; Case No: 6018893/2024 6006286/2025 6009466/2025 PHCM Order 2 of 6 September 2023 iii. Whether the above claims should be consolidated and if so whether the current two-day time estimate for the final hearing is sufficient; iv. Any other appropriate case management orders. 4. The respondent also sought to make an additional jurisdiction point for the first time in Counsel’s Skelton Argument uploaded to the portal on the evening before the hearing. 5. Regrettably, I was only able to determine the respondent’s strike out applications and a number of case management points; the remaining matters I have set out in my …