The employment Tribunal has rejected an attempt at what could be described as a ‘Super-SLAPP’, stating is had “no jurisdiction” to make an Order.
What Happened?
As I wrote about in a previous post, Conrad Thornton of Chester decided to go legal after having his demands for nearly £10,000 rejected – not being entitled to a penny. This was after lying in his CV about his career history, lying in his CV about his ‘achievements’, lying about his salary and lying about prospects he was working on to attempt to gain money (claiming they were live when they weren’t).
Upon rejecting this unwarranted demand for money, he pursed Employment Tribunal Proceedings (despite not actually being employed) for around £15,000 – including £2,400 of ‘operational expenses’.
At a preliminary hearing in January 2025, he abandoned his claim for £2,400 of expenses on the basis it would be ‘difficult to prove’ because he had paid by credit card. This is an odd position given this would be a very easy way of proving expenses if they had actually been incurred.
Shortly after that on 21 January 2025, Thornton made an Application to have this post removed – but the Application was only served on the Tribunal, not the Respondent.
The Application
Perhaps the best way to describe the approach to this Application is as a Super-SLAPP.
The Application Thornton sought was without notice, without informing the other side, without a hearing, without representations from anyone else, in private, to be decided on paper; for the Employment Tribunal to Order removal of this blog post, and prohibit any further posts about him….
This is a remarkable Application to make, and one which (if allowed) would have gone further than a Super Injunction.
Absurdly, the basis of complaint included a complaint of “victimisation under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, as the defamatory post followed my protected act of filing an ET1 claim” – despite the fact that there was no claim in the Tribunal under the Equality Act – or even any indication as to what protected characteristics are.
Apparently, the post “misrepresents the Tribunal proceedings”….. But hang on let’s take a look at what actually said about the Tribunal Proceedings:
now [he] has issued a claim in the Employment Tribunal for over £15,000. Suffice to say the claim will be robustly defended, including applications to Strike Out the claim. We’ll be having fun with this one!
However, the premise of the Employment Tribunal is entirely false and fraudulent! He’s lied through his teeth in those proceedings too!
It is difficult to see how this “misrepresents” the proceedings. It is a fact he made a claim of over £15,000. It is a fact that the claim is being defended robustly. It is a fact that applications have been made to strike out the Claim (to be heard in around September 2025). It is a fact, in the honest opinion of the Respondent that the basis of the claim made is false, and fraudulent – £2,400 of the claim Conrad Thornton abandoned himself.
The Impact Statement
Attached to the Application, Conrad Thornton set out his victim impact statement, which said:
The prominence of this blog post in online searches of my name can influence potential witnesses by presenting a biased and defamatory view of my character and actions. This undermines the fairness and impartiality of the Tribunal proceedings.
I can confirm I have not edited, reduced, paraphrased this or anything – this is literally the ‘impact statement’.
This is opinion and conjecture. It does not give any statement of ‘impact’. Which witnesses has it influenced? Witnesses by their nature will give evidence of fact – ie “Conrad did X” – in fact the rules surrounding witness statements are they must be factual and not contain any opinion . Why would any witness Google search “Conrad Thornton” if they are providing a witness statement of fact?
So apart from some supposition that someone may Google him, and this would somehow change the facts – there has been no impact to Conrad Thornton whatsoever.
The Employment Tribunal’s Position
The Employment Tribunal rejected this Application, stating that:
The Employment Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make case management orders about the content a party to the proceedings posts online.
Quite rightly so!
Although in this case, the person who has actually written the offending blog post is not a party in the Employment Tribunal proceedings.
Opinion
These types of Applications are demonstrative of the abusive nature in which people treat Employment Tribunals. Frankly, the Employment Tribunal isn’t the Jeremy Kyle show, and is not a legal forum to resolve every complaint someone may have.
Seemingly, Conrad Thornton has forgotten that pursuing a claim in the Employment Tribunal (or any legal forum for that matter) means that in the spirit open justice, papers can be made public and hearings will be public – meaning that any member of the public (or media) can grab hold of the paperwork or attend a hearing, and set out their opinion of what saw or heard.
The Tribunal was right to strike out an Application it had no jurisdiction to consider – let alone make an order in relation to! No doubt these abusive Applications will continue in the proceedings.
/
