Ms N Keeble v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing judgment on the respondent's application to strike out Ms Keeble's claims. The tribunal recorded that the first claim was issued on 4 May 2021 and the second on 28 July 2022. At an earlier case management hearing the tribunal had sought to identify the claims and directed the claimant to confirm whether they had been correctly identified and to provide further information. The earlier summary described the primary claims as appearing to be failure to make reasonable adjustments and provide auxiliary aids, but this judgment did not determine those claims on their merits.

The respondent applied for strike out under rules 37(1)(b), 37(1)(d) and 37(1)(e), relying on delay and non-compliance with case management orders. The tribunal found that the claimant had not attempted to comply with the relevant direction until 14 June 2023, around six months after the order was sent and three months after the extended deadline. It found that the claimant's explanations did not fully explain why she was unable to attempt compliance for that period, and that the delay amounted to unreasonable conduct within rule 37(1)(b) and a failure actively to pursue the claims within rule 37(1)(d) between 13 January and 14 June 2023.

The tribunal then considered whether a fair hearing remained possible and whether strike out would be proportionate. It noted there was no specific argument or evidence that the evidence had been affected so that its cogency was impaired to the point that a fair trial was not possible. Although the claimant's non-compliance had meant the listed final hearing had to be postponed, the tribunal was not persuaded that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The strike out application was dismissed. The tribunal held that, despite the procedural breaches, the claimant had belatedly made a serious attempt to comply and that striking out claims which might be meritorious would be disproportionate. No remedy award was made; the judgment instead gave further directions, including that the case would need a further preliminary hearing to identify all claims and any amendment application.