Mr Michael Webb v Warburtons Ltd and 1 other — 2023

Mr Michael Webb presented claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion or belief, and detriment on the ground of a protected disclosure. The tribunal did not determine those claims on their merits. Instead, it struck the claim out under rules 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The tribunal first considered whether the claimant had capacity to conduct the litigation. It applied the assumption of capacity, noted references to possible mental health issues in the claimant's documents, but found there was no direct medical evidence showing lack of capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It referred to Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co and Sheffield CC v E & S, and concluded that the material before it was not sufficient to establish lack of capacity.

On strike out, the tribunal accepted that discrimination and protected disclosure claims should be approached cautiously where central facts are disputed, but held this was an exceptional case. Despite four lengthy documents, the claimant had wholly failed to particularize the claims, and after 20 months since the first case management hearing he had still not set out the case in any real detail. The tribunal found it unlikely that he would be able to do so in the near future, so the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal also found that the claimant's failure to particularize the case was a persistent disregard of procedural steps and of the case management orders. It held that the respondents did not understand the claims or know the case they had to meet, and that this unreasonable conduct justified strike out. The judgment therefore ended the proceedings without any substantive findings on liability or remedy.