Mrs M McCulloch-James v Sponsors for Educational Opportunities Limited — 2026

This reserved judgment determined only the respondent’s applications to strike out Mrs M McCulloch-James’s claims and its application for costs; it did not determine the merits of the substantive claims. Those claims comprise unfair dismissal, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, race discrimination, victimisation, and protected-disclosure detriment and dismissal. The tribunal ordered that none of the claims be struck out.

On the applications under Rules 38(1)(d) and (e), the tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced significant mental ill-health and that preparing for the proceedings had previously contributed to difficulties with her health. It distinguished Peixoto v British Telecommunications plc and Riley v Crown Prosecution Service because the claimant’s GP had no reason to believe she would be unfit for the February 2027 final hearing, a final-hearing date was in place, and the claimant had prepared for and participated in the November 2025 and March 2026 hearings. It found that she had actively pursued her claims and that a fair hearing remained possible.

The tribunal also declined to strike out the claims under Rules 38(1)(b) and (c) for non-compliance with case-management orders. It found some non-compliance, including partial or inadequate schedules of loss, particulars and medical evidence, but characterised this largely as inadequate compliance rather than complete failure. In light of the role of the claimant’s ill-health and evidence of improvement following treatment, striking out was not considered proportionate.

Regarding the hearing on 12 November 2025, the tribunal found that the claimant deliberately disclosed only a partial screenshot of the original GP letter, was wilfully evasive, misrepresented that there was only one letter and was not candid about seeking amendments. It found that conduct unreasonable. It nevertheless concluded that the conduct had not made a fair trial impossible and was not sufficiently serious to make striking out proportionate under the approach in Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James and Bharaj v Santander UK plc.

The tribunal found that the claimant’s conduct caused the 12 November 2025 hearing to be adjourned and engaged both Rule 74(3) and the unreasonable-conduct threshold in Rule 74(2)(a). The respondent claimed £7,010.60 for the adjourned hearing. After considering the claimant’s lack of current income, absence of significant debts, qualifications, previous earnings, health and potential future earning capacity, the tribunal awarded 50% of the claimed costs: £3,505.30, payable by the claimant to the respondent. The tribunal stated that the order was compensatory rather than punitive; no remedy was awarded on the substantive claims.