Dr Cinzia Yates v Richard Newton Consulting Limited — 2024

The claimant brought complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability-related harassment, victimisation, wrongful dismissal, and unauthorised deduction from wages. The hearing was limited to the respondent's application to strike out all claims under Rule 37(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) on the basis of alleged delay, repeated non-compliance, unanswered emails, lost evidence, lack of cooperation, and an asserted inability to have a fair hearing. The claimant's representative said there had been staffing problems, a reduction in caseworkers, and sickness leave, and that failures to comply were not deliberate.

The tribunal accepted that there had been delay, some orders had been breached, and communication between the parties had been poor. It also accepted the explanation given for the difficulties faced by the claimant's representatives. However, it found that the claimant's conduct did not amount to scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious behaviour for the purposes of Rule 37, and it relied on Bolch v Chipman when addressing the strike-out application.

The tribunal further held that a fair trial remained possible. Although the respondent relied on the claimant's reported memory problems and the fact that the matter had been listed for final hearing twice before, the tribunal said those matters could be explored in cross-examination and did not prevent a fair hearing. Applying proportionality and the overriding objective, it refused to strike out the claims under Rule 37(1)(b), (c) or (e). It noted that some orders had still not been complied with and that a costs application might be pursued after the final hearing. All claims remained listed for final hearing.