Ms J Taylor v Kier Group plc — 2022

The claimant's remaining claims were described as claims of direct discrimination because of gender reassignment, including an alternative allegation that the respondent instructed, caused or induced the former second respondent to discriminate by withdrawing a job offer. The respondent denied the claims and said it was unaware that the claimant had undergone gender reassignment and that the role was not progressed because of COVID-related site restrictions and client requirements.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not actively pursued her claims: she had not properly complied with case management orders for disclosure, a schedule of loss, and witness statements, and much of the material she had sent was late or irrelevant to the claims before the tribunal. The tribunal accepted that the threshold for considering strike out under rule 37(1)(d) was met, and also considered that breach of tribunal rules was made out.

The tribunal refused to strike out the claims because it was not satisfied that a fair hearing within a reasonable time was no longer possible or that the prejudice to the respondent was entirely the claimant's responsibility. Instead, it made unless orders requiring the claimant to provide relevant documents, a compliant schedule of loss, and witness statements by 14 April 2023. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application for a stay, noting that she had not provided a timescale or sufficient basis for staying the proceedings.