After I escalated a complaint about tribunal handling to Stage 3, an unusually prompt Newcastle ET sent back a masterpiece of bureaucratic self-protection: a case summary so wrong it barely describes the claim, a blame sheet aimed at the claimant, and a fresh push toward the same tired conduct narrative. So I am publishing both the email and my rebuttal. If a tribunal wants to write character sketches instead of dealing with the case in front of it, it can do so in public.
The Email That Landed
On 10 March 2026, after my complaint had already been escalated, Newcastle Employment Tribunal sent an email saying Employment Judge T.R. Smith had reviewed the file as duty judge.
The message opened with a little sermon about judicial workload. Duty judges can apparently process twenty to thirty paper tasks a day. This one spent three hours on my file. We are told the file is now 1,941 pages and counting. We are told the tribunal has limited resources. We are told the case should be simple. We are told correspondence has been excessive.
Then we are told who the villain is supposed to be.
Not the respondents who have padded the file with sprawling material and dragged the case into satellite nonsense. Not the administrative handling that has already generated complaint after complaint. Not the contradiction sitting in the Grounds of Resistance like a lit flare.
No. The “principal culprit” is me.
That is the line. That is the pitch. That is the frame.
And it comes wrapped in a description of the claim so flimsy it sounds like somebody skim-read the first page of the file and guessed the rest.
The Claim They Pretended To Summarise
The tribunal email says this is a “simple claim” where I complain I did not get a job I applied for and say that was disability discrimination.
That is not a fair summary of the pleaded case.
This is not some generic moan about missing out on a role. It is a recruitment disability discrimination claim arising from what happened after disability was disclosed during the recruitment process. That is the point. That is the statutory point. That is the whole bloody point.
So before Newcastle starts handing out blame for how this case has developed, it might help if Newcastle could describe the case properly first.
Because once the tribunal reduces the claim to “he didn’t get the job and is upset”, everything that follows starts to look less like case management and more like narrative management.
The Real Page Count Problem
The email leans heavily on the size of the file, as though the page count itself is proof of claimant misconduct.
Convenient. Dishonest. Conveniently dishonest.
A substantial chunk of the file has been inflated by respondent material, including an unsolicited binder of around 150 pages and a bundle exceeding 600 pages despite an order that the material be confined to the relevant January events. Those two things alone do not exactly whisper proportionality.
Yet when the tribunal wants to explain why the case has become bloated, it does not start there. It starts with me.
That tells you a lot.
The page count is being used as a moral judgment. Not as a neutral fact. A moral judgment. The state of the file is waved around as though it proves who the problem is. It does not. It proves the case has been allowed to sprawl while the substantive discrimination issues are repeatedly shoved to the side.
From Case Management To Character Assassination
The most revealing part of the email is not even the refusal of the applications. Tribunals refuse applications all the time. That is not the issue.
The issue is tone and framing.
The email says I have used intemperate language. It says I appear to refuse to accept the tribunal’s authority. It lists reconsideration applications, recusal attempts and transfer requests as though they are not procedural steps open to a litigant but pieces of a personality profile. It mocks certain applications as “weak”. It points to attendance issues. It says the tribunal may have to reflect on the conduct of the parties but then leaves very little doubt who it has in mind.
That is what stinks here.
This was not drafted like a neutral administrative communication. It reads like an indictment dressed up as file management. Less “here is the procedural position”, more “here is who we have decided is to blame”.
And it was sent to a disabled litigant in person with known emotional regulation issues, while the tribunal and respondents continue to orbit a conduct narrative like flies around a bin.
Disability When Convenient, Conduct When Useful
This is where the whole thing gets uglier.
Attendance issues and procedural friction do not happen in a vacuum. They happened in the context of health difficulties, anxiety-linked conditions, and a process that has repeatedly become harder to navigate because of volume, timing and administrative asymmetry. That context matters. Or at least it should.
Instead, the email strips everything down to attitude and inconvenience. It presents behaviour without context. Difficulty without mitigation. Reaction without cause.
That is not neutrality. That is selection.
If a disabled claimant says the process is becoming unmanageable, and the answer is a letter effectively calling him the principal culprit, somebody has gone badly wrong.
Newcastle’s Own Role In This Mess
The line that really sticks in the throat is the casual blame-shifting.
This is a case that was diverted away from Newcastle. There is an active complaints trail about administrative handling. The complaints process has already been escalated. Yet in the middle of that, I receive an email that misstates the claim, minimises the respondents’ role in inflating the record, and paints me as the central problem.
That is why this does not look like calm administration. It looks defensive. It looks institutional. It looks like a court system circling around its own failures and trying to turn the claimant into the story.
The timing is not subtle. The smell is not subtle. The message is not subtle.
Escalate a complaint, get a blame letter.
My Rebuttal
I responded by correcting the record.
I set out that this is a recruitment disability discrimination claim concerning treatment after disclosure of disability. I pointed out that the file size has been materially inflated by respondent submissions, including over-bundling well beyond what was ordered. I explained that procedural applications were not random abuse of process but attempts to obtain basic clarity and participate fairly as a disabled litigant in person. I also raised the administrative asymmetry in responsiveness and the concern that responsibility was being pinned on me by a tribunal communication that did not even describe the claim accurately.
In plain English, my rebuttal said this:
If you are going to lecture me about the state of this case, at least understand the case first.
Published Below
For the record, and because sunlight is the only thing some institutions understand, I am publishing the 10 March 2026 tribunal email and my rebuttal.
Read them side by side.
Ask yourself whether the tribunal email reads like neutral case management.
Ask yourself why the substantive discrimination issues keep disappearing behind “conduct”.
Ask yourself how a disabled claimant ends up receiving a letter like this after escalating complaints about administrative handling.
Then ask yourself who exactly is protecting whom.
Tribunal Email Dated 10 March 2026 and Response
Date
10 March 2026Case Number: 6019060/2024
Claimant
Mr L ThompsonDear Claimant,
Respondent
v
- Cepac Ltd
- Page Outsourcing UK Limited
Employment Judge T.R. Smith has reviewed this file, acting as duty judge. The concept of duty is where a judge deals with various paper applications or vets claims. Normally a judge can undertake about 20 to 30 of these tasks a day. The judge spent 3 hours on this file which consists of 1941 pages and counting.
This should be a simple claim. The claimant complains he did not get a job he applied for which he says was disability discrimination. The claim was issued in 2024. No list of issues is yet agreed let alone the case being set down for trial. The over riding objective includes an obligation for the parties to assist the tribunal and to co-operate generally. The tribunal is only required to deal with cases in a proportionate manner and what has been required of the tribunal to date is wholly disproportionate.
Twice the parties have been warned about excessive correspondence by both Judge Arullendran and Judge Jeram but that appears to have gone unheeded.
The principle culprit is the claimant. He has failed to attend any preliminary hearings. He has used intemperate language (“tell the judge to fuck off…” and “I demand the Tribunal…” are but examples). He appears to refuse to accept the authority of the tribunal. He has made a number of applications for reconsideration against the determination of various judges. He has sought the recusal of one judge and made a request for his case to be transferred to another region.
He has made what generously could be described as a number of weak application, for example to join the respondent’s solicitors as a second respondent or a witness order for a tribunal clerk.
The tribunal has to have regard not just to the parties but the other litigants waiting to have their cases heard and the tribunal’s very limited resources.
The tribunal has mentioned these concerns as following the coming public preliminary hearing the tribunal may itself have to reflect on the conduct of the parties. In any event the parties can expect ongoing robust close case management.
Turning to the claimant’s specific recent applications. Documents submitted by the respondent were either handed in at a hearing after being copied to the claimant or submitted electronically, again after the claimant had been copied in. He has the documents.
Employment Judge Salter has already made an order regarding the bundle for the preliminary hearing.
No extension of time is granted in respect of disclosure given Regional Employment Judge Davies has already granted one and given the lack of co-operation to date this judge is concerned that there is a real risk the hearing in April could be in jeopardy. The tribunal is not prepared to postpone the hearing. It has been postponed a number of times. The claimant does not appear to have attended any of the hearings to date. This case must progress. The claimant has plenty of time to prepare given the issues the tribunal has to determine.
The further application the claimant has made, for example that the liability trial be dealt with on papers can be addressed at the end of the public preliminary hearing, if necessary.
Yours faithfully,
Miranda Charters
For the Tribunal Office
My Response
Case number: 6019060/2024
Claimant: Lee Thompson
Respondents: (1) Cepac Ltd (2) Page Outsourcing UK LimitedDear Tribunal,
I write in response to the Tribunal’s correspondence dated 10 March 2026, issued following review of the file by Employment Judge T.R. Smith.
Given the serious observations made in that letter about both the nature of the claim and the conduct of the proceedings, it is necessary to correct several material mischaracterisations so that the Tribunal record accurately reflects the actual procedural and factual position.
1. Misdescription of the claim
The letter describes this as a “simple claim” in which the claimant complains he did not obtain a job he applied for.That description does not accurately reflect the pleaded case.
This is a recruitment disability discrimination claim arising from a sequence in which:
• I applied for a role through the recruitment process.
• I was invited to interview or further discussion regarding the role.
• During that process I disclosed a health condition.
• The promised follow-up contact regarding the interview did not occur thereafter.The central issue is therefore treatment following disclosure of disability, which engages the statutory framework under the Equality Act 2010.
Reducing the claim to a generic complaint about not obtaining a job materially mischaracterises the basis of the proceedings.
It is therefore concerning that responsibility for the scale and conduct of the proceedings is attributed to the claimant in circumstances where the letter itself appears not to reflect the core premise of the claim.
2. Attribution of responsibility for the file size
The letter refers to the file now exceeding 1,900 pages and attributes the disproportion principally to the claimant.That attribution does not reflect the procedural reality of this case.
A substantial portion of the material on the file arises from respondent submissions, including:
• An unsolicited binder of approximately 150 pages, submitted outside the scope of the relevant issue.
• A bundle exceeding 600 pages, notwithstanding that the Tribunal had expressly ordered that the bundle be limited to the January events relevant to the preliminary issue.Those two submissions alone account for a very significant proportion of the pages now referred to by the Tribunal.
These materials materially expanded both the size of the file and the issues being addressed.
It is therefore inaccurate to characterise the present scale of the record as principally the product of claimant conduct.
3. Expansion of proceedings away from the substantive claim
Much of the procedural complexity in this case has arisen because the Respondents have repeatedly directed submissions toward satellite procedural issues and conduct arguments, rather than addressing the core recruitment discrimination question.This has inevitably generated further correspondence and procedural applications.
In that context, attributing the expansion of the record primarily to the claimant does not reflect the way in which the case has actually developed.
4. Applications made by the claimant
It is correct that I have made a number of procedural applications during the life of the proceedings.However, those applications have largely been made in response to:
• The scope and volume of respondent submissions.
• Uncertainty about what material is properly before the Tribunal.
• Attempts to obtain procedural clarity necessary for a disabled litigant in person to participate fairly in the proceedings.The fact that a litigant in person raises procedural concerns or applications does not in itself indicate abuse of the Tribunal’s process.
5. Attendance at hearings
The letter refers to my failure to attend certain preliminary hearings.Where attendance issues have arisen they occurred in the context of significant health difficulties, including anxiety-related conditions, together with concerns about procedural fairness at the time.
In particular, the introduction of substantial volumes of material at short notice created circumstances that were extremely difficult for a disabled litigant in person to engage with safely and effectively.
Those factors formed part of the context in which attendance issues arose and should not be interpreted simply as disregard for the authority of the Tribunal.
6. Administrative asymmetry and respondent material inflating the file
I must also express serious concern regarding the asymmetry in administrative responsiveness and scrutiny applied to the parties.On at least one occasion the Respondents’ solicitor, Mr Butler, received a same-day response from the Tribunal to correspondence he submitted. By contrast, when I sought clarification on procedural matters or the status of applications, responses were frequently delayed or not provided at all.
As a disabled litigant in person attempting to comply with Tribunal directions, the absence of equivalent responsiveness placed me at a clear disadvantage.
This asymmetry is particularly concerning in circumstances where the claimant is now described as the “principal culprit” for the volume of the file, while substantial respondent submissions, including the 150-page unsolicited binder and the 600-page bundle exceeding the ordered scope, have not been acknowledged in the same way.
7. Concern regarding conclusions reached without accurate understanding of the claim
Given that the Tribunal letter appears to misunderstand the fundamental premise of the claim, I must express serious concern that responsibility for the procedural state of the case is nevertheless attributed primarily to the claimant.It is difficult to understand how conclusions regarding the causes of the present procedural position can fairly be reached if the underlying nature of the claim is not accurately understood.
For the overriding objective to be applied properly, assessments of proportionality and responsibility must be based on an accurate understanding of both:
• The nature of the claim.
• The full procedural history, including the Respondents’ contribution to the present volume of material.8. Moving the case forward
I agree that the Tribunal must deal with cases proportionately and efficiently.For that to occur here it is important that the proceedings return to the substantive recruitment disability discrimination issues, rather than allowing the case to be dominated by satellite disputes that have significantly expanded the file.
My objective remains to have the underlying discrimination claim determined fairly on its merits.
9. Clarification for the record
In light of the above, I respectfully request that this response be placed on the Tribunal file so that the record reflects the following:
• The claim is a recruitment disability discrimination claim concerning treatment following disclosure of disability.
• The present file size has been significantly influenced by respondent submissions and over-bundling, not solely claimant correspondence.
• The procedural history must be understood in the context of respondent conduct, administrative complications, and the claimant’s status as a disabled litigant in person.
• Concerns about claimant conduct should not be considered in isolation from the Respondents’ own procedural conduct and the asymmetry with which those issues have so far been treated.10. Update requested regarding complaints escalation
Finally, I note that the correspondence of 10 March 2026 was sent by Ms Miranda Charters, who was also involved in the earlier stages of the HMCTS complaints process concerning the administrative handling of this case.As that complaints process is currently escalated to the final stage with the HMCTS User Investigations Team, I would be grateful if the Tribunal could confirm when I may expect an update regarding that escalation.
Given that the complaint concerns administrative handling of this case, it would assist clarity if the progress of that review could be confirmed.
Yours faithfully,
Lee Thompson
Claimant – Litigant in Person
My Rebuttal – They Wrote The Frame. I Am Publishing The Record.
That is where this now sits.
A disabled claimant escalates concerns about tribunal handling. The answer is a letter that misstates the claim, leans on the file size without honestly grappling with who inflated it, and labels the claimant the principal culprit while the respondents’ role fades into the wallpaper.
That is not a healthy process. That is a system trying to tidy itself up by dumping the mess onto the person complaining.
So no, this will not stay buried in an inbox.
If Newcastle wants to push a conduct narrative (because it is being complained about) while barely understanding the underlying claim, it can do it with the lights on.
Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project
Sources
- 10 March 2026 tribunal email in case 6019060/2024
- Lee Thompson rebuttal response to tribunal email dated 10 March 2026
- Lee Thompson escalation email copied to MP and respondents dated 10 March 2026