Mrs N Leeks v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust — 2023

Employment Judge Kelly sat alone on 12 July 2023. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal recorded that at the earlier CVP hearing on 17 November 2022 the claimant repeatedly interrupted, spoke over the judge, was warned, and was muted more than once. The hearing took longer than it should have done and did not cover all matters. After that hearing, the claimant was directed to explain why her claim should not be struck out and, in relation to the disability discrimination issue, to provide medical records or consent for release of her GP notes.

The claimant sent emails on 2, 3 and 9 December 2022 objecting to the medical records order and seeking to rescind the strike-out-related paragraphs. The tribunal noted that she did not provide the requested assurance that there would be no repeat of the November conduct, and that she instead blamed technical issues and the judge. She appealed to the EAT and applied for a stay, but the tribunal refused a stay unless the EAT had directed the claim to proceed at sift stage. By the hearing date the EAT had notified her that the appeal disclosed no reasonable ground. When the tribunal telephoned her at 10.00am on 12 July 2023, she said she would not attend because she was bed bound and because she was appealing to the EAT, but she did not seek a postponement.

Applying Rule 47 and Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, together with the overriding objective and the authorities cited on strike-out and fairness, the tribunal decided to proceed in her absence. It rejected striking out solely for failure to provide further medical evidence because the earlier order had provided for a stay rather than strike-out. The tribunal found the claimant's conduct at the November hearing unreasonable, concluded that there was no confidence she would behave differently if the case continued, and held that a fair hearing was no longer possible. It considered strike-out proportionate given the prejudice to the respondent, the wasted hearing time, and the claimant's refusal to give assurance or accept the tribunal's authority. The result recorded at the end of the judgment was that the claimant's claims were dismissed, but the reasons explain that the operative disposal was strike-out of the entire claim.