Mr M Higgins v University College London — 2024

At the resumed hearing in May 2024, the tribunal dealt only with the respondent's strike-out application, not the substantive merits of Mr Higgins's claims. The judgment records that the victimisation claim and the harassment claim, described as harassment relating to Lorren Rea, were dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining pleaded claims - unfair dismissal, discriminatory dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unpaid holiday pay/breach of contract, and wrongful dismissal - were struck out under rule 37.

The strike-out application turned on five emails which the tribunal found had been modified at the claimant's instruction. Three Diva Shah emails from June and July 2019 were altered to suggest she had said she could make up hours by working from home, and two emails from the claimant in March and April 2020 were altered in relation to Access to Work funding and taxi journeys. The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation that the changes were merely an 'aide memoire' or tidying up, and found that the documents had been deliberately modified to change their meaning and to be passed off to the respondent in internal processes.

The tribunal found that the altered documents were relevant to parts of the disability discrimination case, that the claimant's explanations on 3 and 5 May 2023 were inconsistent, and that he continued to maintain a false explanation under oath when confronted. It concluded that it could not have confidence in his veracity as a witness, that a fair hearing was no longer possible, and that strike out was proportionate. The tribunal noted the claimant's blindness and the practical difficulties of annotation, but found that the method of modification did not alter the conclusion that the intent was to mislead. No monetary remedy was awarded.