Terence Hancox v Kenneth Sutherland & Ors

All litigants before the EAT, represented or not, must comply with its Rules and Practice Direction. A litigant using generative AI remains responsible for checking that submissions comply with procedure, are accurate and relevant, and do not mislead the Tribunal. A party who clearly confirms that only specified appeal grounds are pursued may be held to that position; permission to resile requires an application assessed in all the circumstances, including prejudice, the stage reached and the interests of justice. At a preliminary hearing, a ground proceeds only if it raises a reasonably arguable error of law with practical significance.

The Employment Tribunal struck out the Appellant’s employment claims against four individual Respondents after finding that his LinkedIn campaign had made a fair trial impossible. The Appellant, a former employee of the National Farmers’ Union, appealed. At an EAT preliminary hearing, with ELAAS assistance, he pursued only the ground that he had not received fair notice that the strike-out application would be determined or a fair opportunity to prepare and respond. He had filed a 300-page skeleton argument prepared using ChatGPT, and no supplementary bundle had been prepared before the hearing.

After the hearing, the Appellant sought to revive a further ground concerning the Tribunal’s consideration of his rights under Articles 6 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also sought disclosure and review of EAT orders. The EAT had to decide whether the pursued ground was reasonably arguable and whether the Appellant should be permitted to resile from his clear position at the hearing.

The EAT permitted one ground to proceed to a full hearing. It did not decide that the appeal would succeed.

1. Notice and opportunity to respond. It was reasonably arguable that the Employment Tribunal’s email saying the strike-out application would be “discussed” did not tell a litigant in person that the application might be determined at the hearing. It was also arguable that the final notice, the timing and volume of documents, and the absence of input into the bundle left insufficient opportunity to prepare representations under rule 37(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The full appeal hearing would decide the issue.

2. Resiling from the position taken at the hearing. Where a party clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously states that only specified grounds are pursued, the EAT may confine its consideration accordingly. A party seeking to resile must apply, and affected parties must have an opportunity to respond. The court should assess all the circumstances, including the reasons for the change, new evidence or developments, the parties’ conduct, prejudice, the stage reached, prospects of success and the interests of justice. The approach in Nowicka-Price v Chief Constable of Gwent Constabulary (UKEAT/0268/09) and rule 14.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 supplied a useful framework. The Appellant had had time and assistance to consider the grounds, adopted a clear position, and identified no new evidence or good reason to change it. The Respondents would face further cost and delay. The application to resile was dismissed.

3. Proposed Articles 6 and 10 ground. The Employment Tribunal had referred to freedom of speech, considered whether a fair trial remained possible, taken account of the Respondents’ ability to give evidence and considered whether a lesser measure would suffice. Although its reasoning was brief, it was not reasonably arguable that a separate analysis of the Appellant’s Articles 6 and 10 rights would have added anything material on these facts. The proposed ground also required permission to amend the notice of appeal, which could not be assumed.

4. Procedure and AI. The EAT Rules and Practice Direction apply to represented and unrepresented litigants. Skeleton arguments must comply with the Practice Direction, including its requirements of concision, structure and proper references; non-compliant documents may be rejected or attract other sanctions. AI may assist litigants, but anyone submitting AI-assisted material remains responsible for checking its accuracy, procedural compliance and relevance. It is unacceptable to submit unchecked output or to place the checking burden on an opponent.

5. Other applications and directions. The disclosure application was dismissed and certified totally without merit because the documents sought could not assist on the ground proceeding. Applications to review EAT orders were dismissed. The EAT ordered that future applications be made on the Practice Direction’s prescribed form. It warned that continued excessive correspondence could lead to restrictions on communication, while taking the Appellant’s mental health into account. Directions were made for the full hearing.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal: In [2026] EAT 139 , the EAT held that the fair-notice and opportunity ground was reasonably arguable and could proceed to a full hearing. It dismissed the application to revive the further Articles 6 and 10 ground and dismissed the other applications addressed in this judgment.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: Following a rule 3(10) hearing on 7 January 2026, HHJ Tayler directed an inter partes preliminary hearing to assess whether the proposed grounds disclosed reasonable grounds of appeal.
3. Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Lloyd struck out the relevant claims following a hearing on 23 April 2021. The judgment and reasons were sent on 18 May 2021. The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s conduct was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious and that a fair trial was no longer possible. A later reconsideration application was refused.