A tribunal has struck out a claim for unlawful deduction of wages made by a former civil servant.

Graeme Jones, an executive officer in the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office from 2009 until he resigned in September 2020, has seen a raft of previous tribunal claims rejected - including ones for victimisation, discrimination, bullying and harassment.

Costs incurred by the respondent had risen to £140,000 by November last year - and the claimant has been warned he could now face paying hefty costs.

The tribunal branded Mr Jones’ claims as ‘spurious and ill-founded’ and criticised the way they and the respondent had been ‘bombarded’ by ‘incessant’ emails. In the latest ruling Mr Jones’s claim for unlawful deductions has been struck out as having no merit. He had failed to provide as requested a detailed and clear schedule of losses.

Tribunal chairman Douglas Stewart said: ‘I find it hard to conceive that he could seriously put forward such an ill-thought out and fanciful schedule of loss.’

Mr Jones had previously challenged the rejection of his constructive dismissal claim and dismissal of many of his allegations of whistleblowing.

Two of his protected disclosures had found to be proven but a second hearing ruled that they had not resulted in his constructive dismissal and his issues were ‘in reality self-inflicted’.

His appeal against that decision was dismissed in November 2022.

The ‘bombardment’ of the tribunal and the respondent with incessant emails had continued into the current year, leading the chairman to direct Mr Jones to stop sending any more. While the respondent’s costs had risen to £140,000 by November last year, the tribunal chairman said he did not intend to award anything like that amount and neither was the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office seeking the total amount.

Mr Steward had previously said he was prepared to make an order that Mr Jones should pay the sum of £2,000 without any assessment.

But having failed to provide details of his financial circumstances, he had now forfeited the right to have his means taken into account.

Mr Stewart said there is clear authority from the tribunals and courts in England that an order for payment of costs in a sum beyond the reach of the paying party can be made even if there is evidence, they are not in a financial position to pay.

He said Mr Jones may be ordered to pay the whole or a specified part of the costs as determined by way of detailed assessment in the High Court or by the tribunal applying the same principles. Mr Stewart said: ‘There is no reason, from an unreasonable behavioural aspect, why only a proportion of the costs since the start date should be ordered to be paid.’