In Person v Respondent — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Wedderspoon on 6 April 2023 to consider the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's disability discrimination claim as having no reasonable prospect of success, or alternatively for a deposit order. The claimant, who has autism, dyspraxia and ADHD, brought a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments arising from an unsuccessful job application for a senior research and development engineer role with the respondent. The respondent had previously accepted the claimant's disability status at the material time.

The tribunal identified factual disputes which it considered could only be resolved by hearing oral evidence at a substantive hearing, including whether the respondent read the claimant's CV (which the claimant said disclosed his disabilities via his LinkedIn profile) and whether 'experience of SolidWorks' was an essential or merely desirable criterion for the role. The job advertisement was not before the tribunal. Applying the guidance in Cox v Adecco, Anyanwu, Mechkarov and Blockbuster v James, the judge held that strike out is a Draconian step to be taken only in the clearest cases, particularly in discrimination claims, and that the tribunal should not conduct a mini-trial at the preliminary stage.

The tribunal accordingly dismissed both the strike out application and the deposit order application, finding that it could not be said the claim had no reasonable prospect or little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's evidence as to means (limited eBay income of around £9,000–£10,000 per annum, savings of £1,500, mortgage debt of approximately £175,000, other debts of around £10,500, credit card debt of £1,800–£2,000 and £196 in his current account) was recorded but no deposit order was made.