Martin Miranda Antelo v Sutton Housing Partnership Limited — 2024

This judgment concerned the Claimant's application to strike out the Respondent's response, not the underlying merits claims. The Claimant said the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner, that Tribunal orders had not been complied with, and that a fair hearing was no longer possible. He relied in particular on the Respondent's alleged failure to disclose documents, including material he said had been requested for some time.

The Tribunal recorded that both parties had failed to comply with case management orders and had not properly engaged with each other. The case was not ready to proceed to the full merits hearing, and both parties applied to postpone it. The Tribunal also noted that the Respondent had tried to agree an extension for witness statements, that the Claimant had not responded, and that the Claimant had not yet served witness statements himself.

Applying Rule 37 and the overriding objective, and referring to the two-stage approach in HM Prison Service v Dolby and Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd, the Tribunal held that the Respondent's conduct was not scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. Although the Claimant argued that a fair trial was not possible without further documents, the Tribunal said further case management orders now provided for a proper search of documents and that a fair trial was still possible. The strike out application was therefore refused.