Ms M Jones v NWCS (Training) Limited — 2022

The claimant presented a disability discrimination claim on 26 March 2020, but the claim form contained very limited background information, stating only that she had applied for a position. A later letter from the claimant’s representative referred to the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, but it did not explain the alleged failures or provide the factual background needed to identify the issues. At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Warren described the claim as difficult to understand and lacking particulars, and ordered further particulars, an amended response, a schedule of loss, a disability impact statement, medical documents, disclosure, and witness evidence.

The claimant complied with some of the orders, including the schedule of loss and disability impact statement, but did not provide the further particulars or witness evidence. By the time of the final hearing, the Tribunal had no witness statement, no sufficient claim particulars, and no meaningful basis on which to identify a list of issues or the evidence supporting the case. The respondent applied to strike out the claim shortly before the final hearing under Rules 37(1)(c), (d) and also raised Rule 37(1)(a), although the Tribunal noted the merits could not sensibly be assessed without evidence.

The Tribunal gave the claimant’s representative an opportunity to address the application and considered whether the claim could be amended or the hearing delayed, but no amendment application was made and the Tribunal concluded that postponement would not be proportionate. It held that the case had not been actively pursued and that the failure to comply with orders 1.1 and 6.1 justified strike out. In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal took account of the overriding objective under Rule 2 and considered the Equal Treatment Bench Book guidance on specific learning disorders such as dyslexia.

The Tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of dyslexia, although disputed mental health issues were not accepted as being in issue for this purpose, but found no evidence that the disability had prevented preparation of the case with the assistance of her representative. It also noted that any difficulty obtaining instructions had not been raised earlier. The claim was therefore struck out and the final hearing listed for 21 to 23 February 2022 did not take place.