Mr R Tedd v Surrey County Council — 2023

The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant’s claims should be struck out because he had not complied with earlier case management orders and had not actively pursued the case. It found that, despite being given an extension of time and assistance in clarifying his claims, he did not provide the ordered further information in the required form and instead sent large volumes of unexplained material.

The tribunal also examined the claimant’s explanation that he could not attend the full hearing on 30 May 2023 because of a medical appointment during the listed hearing time. After reviewing the emails and medical records, it found there was no evidence of such an appointment and that the claimant’s explanations were inconsistent. The tribunal found that he had deliberately misled the tribunal and the respondent about that asserted appointment.

On the medical evidence more generally, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had complex health conditions, but found the evidence did not show that he had been unable to comply with the orders or unable to seek a further extension in time. It concluded that his default was intentional and contumelious, that he had failed to actively pursue the claims, and it therefore struck out the claims under rule 37(1)(d) without going on to decide rule 37(1)(c).