In person with Mr Massingham For the v Mr Hemsi (solicitor) — 2024

This was a respondent's strike-out application heard after a nine-day hearing of the claimant's unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, disability discrimination and victimisation claims. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had dyslexia, ADHD and autism, and that it had already found her to be disabled by reason of those conditions.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was plainly distressed for much of the hearing and frequently tearful, and that she sometimes struggled to regulate her breathing before asking questions. It also found that on occasion she raised her voice, made inappropriate comments, and directed criticism towards witnesses, observers and the respondent's representative. The reasons refer in particular to a question about children, an exchange about an unexpected observer attending the hearing, a loud comment directed at Mr Andrew, sarcastic repetition of the phrase "wellbeing perspective", and disparaging comments about Mr Hemsi. The tribunal found that she was trying to conduct the hearing properly but at times lost composure in a long and stressful hearing, consistent with the effects of autism and ADHD.

Applying Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the cited authorities on strike out, the tribunal held that the conduct was not scandalous, vexatious or unreasonable when viewed in context. It also held that there was no basis for concluding that a fair trial was no longer possible: no concern had been raised during the hearing that the claimant's conduct was affecting witnesses' ability to give evidence, and all of the respondent's witnesses had given their evidence without apparent difficulty. The respondent's strike-out application was therefore dismissed.