Zotefoams plc

Case Summary

A preliminary hearing determining whether to strike out the claimant's claims for lack of reasonable prospects of success or due to unreasonable conduct of proceedings, and whether to award a deposit. The tribunal rejected both strike out applications and declined to award a deposit, finding that the claimant's case should be heard on its merits despite concerns about witness availability and conduct issues.

The tribunal found that striking out was a draconian step to be taken only in clear cut cases, and there was public interest in discrimination and whistleblowing cases being heard on the merits. Although there were concerns about witness conduct and availability, particularly regarding witness intimidation, the tribunal considered these matters could be addressed at the full hearing and that a fair determination remained possible without striking out. The claimant's conduct concerns did not reach the threshold of scandal or vexatiousness necessary for strike out.

• •Strike out applications under rules 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b)
• •Whether claims have reasonable prospects of success
• •Whether conduct of proceedings was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious
• •Deposit award considerations under rule 39

Case No: 6020985/2024 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms A Kozlowska Respondent: Zotefoams PLC Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal by CVP On: 14 and 15 April 2026 Before: Employment Judge T Perry Representation Claimant: in person Respondent: Mr Sutton KC (Of Counsel) JUDGMENT 1. The applications to strike out the Claimant’s claims under rules 38(1)(a) and (b) are rejected. 2. The application to strike out the Respondent’s defence under rule 38(1)(b) is rejected. 3. The Tribunal declines to award a deposit under rule 39. REASONS Introduction 1. The Tribunal was provided with the following documents: a. A bundle from the Respondent running to 181 pages; b. A supplementary bundle from the Respondent running to 16 pages; c. A cast list and chronology from the Respondent; d. A bundle from the Claimant running to 126 pages; and e. A bundle of pleadings and authorities from the Claimant running to 441 pages. 2. The bundle from the Claimant included witness statements from the Claimant and from Kristine Turlo. Case No: 6020985/2024 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 3. The Respondent provided witness statements from Ronan Cox, Clare Farmer and Alison Fautley. 4. EJ Evans listed this hearing at a Preliminary Hearing on 26 November 2025. The case management orders of that hearing recorded at paragraph 2 that it was at my discretion whether I would hear live evidence. At the start of the hearing, I expressed my provisional view that I did not intend to hear live evidence but would have regard to the written witness statements. Mr Sutton KC suggested that live evidence may be required as to the question of the conduct of proceedings but not as to the merits of the Claimant’s claim. The Claimant, after a reading break, confirmed that her view was that the applications could be determined based …