Everyone’s been laughing it up at this case where a man dismissed from his job as a kitchen porter at a hotel brought an unfair dismissal claim, stating that his dismissal had been orchestrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to the ET:
“The Claimant made repeated references in his claim form to secret video recordings carried out on behalf of the Watch Tower Society; he talked about the Watch Tower Society instigating his dismissal; coming into the Hotel to turn staff against him; spreading rumours about his sexuality; preventing witnesses from assisting him; installing secret cameras in changing rooms and in his room; falsely imprisoning him in a Psychiatric Hospital; and showing the tapes to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair.”
It isn’t funny though, not really. As much as us lawyers smirk in amusement at outlandish and delusional claims in front of the court, take a moment to put yourself in the shoes of the Claimant himself. I can’t quite imagine what it must be like to be so utterly convinced that you’ve (a) been wronged and (b) that everyone’s been corrupted against you. In practice once I dealt with a county court claim where the Defendant would write letters to the county court that were ten or twelve pages of bitter anguish at not one, not two, but four of the district judges there having been bribed to find against him. DJ’s must be cheap - the claim was only for about £1500, but what can you do about people like this? In the tribunal claim it was found that the Judge had no right to involve the offical solicitor in the case, and simply had to deal with the Claimant’s claim as it was presented.
This is off-topic, but I think for practical purposes the idea that you humour someone in this state is barbaric. Is it right that if someone doesn’t actually pose a physical risk to themselves and others we’ll allow them to subject themselves to so much misery without intervention?
The trouble is that just because they are ‘delusional’ doesn’t mean that they don’t, perhaps, have a case in there somewhere - I’ve had a few immensely frustrating new client enquiries of this sort that did turn out to have valid claims, albeit not for what they thought it was.
In addition, I don’t think it is necessarily ‘humouring’ that goes on, but more honourably, honouring a principle that everyone’s claim will get attention, even if it goes nowhere. Besides, if they aren’t a danger to themselves or others, aside from wasting time, what intervention should be rightfully made? I agree on the misery and frustration that is boiling away, but what? enforced medical treatment?
As the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you. There is often a good claim in there somewhere, but the unfortunate technicality of employment tribunal proceedings means that the litigant has often missed their chance to put it before the tribunal by the time they get to that stage. As we all know the advice is needed at the start, but it often isn’t welcome or sought.
I don’t know the correct form of the intervention, but I still object to the principle that as long as someone isn’t a physical danger to themself or others then we’ll allow them to subject themselves to such misery. Free choice (such as a choice to argue the unarguable) must surely depend on capacity. If he chose to leave all his money to an organisation on the basis of his deluded world view, his family could well challenge it.
These are deep social issues. We should get some expert input to put us right.