Mr Lamina, Lay representative (for part of the hearing) For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal heard preliminary issues in a case in which the claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, race discrimination, unlawful deduction of wages, breach of contract (notice pay) and, possibly, protected interest disclosure detriment. It noted that an earlier duplicate claim had been withdrawn and dismissed. The hearing focused on whether the unfair dismissal claim had been presented too early, whether the claimant was disabled at the relevant time, and whether the remaining claims should be struck out under rule 37(1)(b) and (c).

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant did not resign on 1 May 2019 or 23 July 2019, and was not expressly dismissed before the claim was presented. It relied on payslips covering 27 April 2019 to 14 September 2019 and on disciplinary correspondence from mid-July 2019 as evidence that the claimant was still employed when the claim was lodged. The tribunal therefore held that section 94 ERA 1996 did not give it jurisdiction and struck out the unfair dismissal claim.

On disability, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had rib and wrist injuries after a workplace accident, but found that those injuries had resolved by 14 March 2019 and were not long-term. It also accepted that the claimant experienced anxiety and stress, but found these were reactions to workplace problems rather than a mental impairment, referring to J v DLA Piper [2010] ICR 1052. In any event, the tribunal found that the condition had not lasted, and was not shown to be expected to last, for 12 months by 1 July 2019, so the disability discrimination claim was struck out.

The remaining claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(b) and (c) because of prolonged non-compliance with case management orders, the form of the claimant's further particulars, and correspondence the tribunal treated as scandalous. Applying the overriding objective and authorities including De Keyser Ltd v Wilson and Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, the tribunal found that a fair trial was no longer possible and that strike out was the proportionate response. No monetary award was made because all claims were struck out.