Mr L Samuels v Solstice Limited — 2017

Mr L Samuels brought a disability discrimination claim against Solstice Limited based on epilepsy. The respondent applied at a preliminary hearing on 1 June 2017 to strike out the claim under rule 37 or, alternatively, for a deposit order under rule 39, arguing that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The dispute centred on what happened at an interview on 7 February 2017, where the parties gave radically different accounts.

The tribunal refused both applications. It said the case turned on a stark conflict of evidence that could only be resolved after hearing evidence, and it took the claim at its face value for the purpose of the applications. The claimant told the tribunal that the allegation that he had taken off his clothes was false and that he had never taken his clothes off during an epileptic episode. The respondent relied on section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, regulation 4 of the Disability Discrimination (Meaning of Disability) Regulations 1996, Edmund Nuttall Ltd v Butterfield, and Governing Body of X Endowed Primary School v Special Needs and Disability Tribunal, but the tribunal held that it could not decide on the papers whether the alleged treatment related to epilepsy or to an excluded condition.

No merits finding was made and no award was recorded. The tribunal therefore made no order on the strike-out or deposit applications and directed that the matter be listed for a further preliminary hearing by telephone for case management.