Mr M Turner v UK Visas and Citizenship, The Home Office Following a preliminary hearing — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing in Mr M Turner's multi-claim litigation against UK Visas and Citizenship, The Home Office. The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying discrimination claims. Instead, it decided strike-out and costs/preparation time applications arising from case management disputes about the claimant's disability, covert recordings, and compliance with tribunal directions. The claimant was found to have OCD and ADHD, and the tribunal approached the applications with that in mind.

On the claimant's first strike-out application, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had been in technical breach of the case management order by conceding disability one day late and had not clearly stated whether it relied on lack of knowledge of disability. It nevertheless refused strike-out, holding that it would be wholly disproportionate because the disability issue had effectively fallen away and the default could be cured by a fresh order with a sanction for any further non-compliance.

The claimant's application for a preparation time order was also refused. The tribunal held that he was not legally represented for the purpose of the rules, so there was no power to award costs in the way he sought, and that there was no basis for a preparation time order because the respondent had not acted unreasonably in declining to admit disability. The tribunal said it was reasonable for the respondent to ask for information before making a concession, particularly given the nature of the alleged disability.

The respondent's strike-out application failed. The tribunal found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in sending the 7 and 9 January 2020 emails to media organisations offering access to audio recordings, in failing to engage with the tribunal's directions about the recordings and transcripts in a structured way, and in accusing Ms Sample of lying without a proper basis. It also found no reliable evidence that the respondent had threatened or abused the claimant, fabricated documents, or destroyed evidence; it preferred Mrs Wakefield's evidence about what she saw in the claimant's Dropbox account. Although the claimant's conduct was unreasonable, the tribunal held that a fair hearing could still take place and that strike-out would be disproportionate.