Miss K Sangster v UK Carline Limited — 2020

This was a reserved judgment on the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response under rule 37 and for a preparation time order, heard during the ongoing sex discrimination proceedings. The tribunal recorded that the claimant said she was dismissed by Mr Godbert on 9 July 2019 and that the merits hearing had been affected by repeated disclosure issues, including late production of documents said to relate to two vehicle finance deals and, later, disclosure of notes of the dismissal meeting said to have been based on a covert recording.

The tribunal found that the respondent's disclosure of the transaction paperwork was piecemeal and late, and that the claimant had prepared her witness statement without sight of the fuller documents. It also found a serious failure to disclose the existence of the covert recording and transcript of the 9 July 2019 meeting until partway through Mr Godbert's cross-examination, notwithstanding earlier disclosure of notes said to have been made from that recording. The tribunal treated the 17 September 2020 email threatening a wasted costs application and referring to the claimant's alleged debts as further unreasonable conduct, although it gave less weight to the alleged winking and gesturing during cross-examination.

Applying rule 37 and the authorities it cited, including the two-stage approach and the need to consider proportionality and whether a fair hearing remained possible, the tribunal held that the respondent had been in material breach of disclosure orders and had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings. It said rule 37(1)(e) would not by itself have been made out, but concluded that the hearing before this panel had already been rendered unfair and could not be cured by simply continuing with the response in place. The response was therefore struck out, the respondent being allowed only to make submissions on whether the claimant had established a prima facie case of sex discrimination and, if appropriate, to take part in any remedy hearing.

No final liability finding or monetary award was made in this judgment. The hearing of the substantive claims was listed to resume on 20 and 21 January 2021, and the claimant's application for a preparation time order was left to be further particularised and considered later.