Mr N Rouke Respondent Diageo Plc v Respondent — 2021

Mr Rouke brought disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims against Diageo plc arising from events going back to 2015. The final hearing had already gone part-heard in November 2018 after the claimant suffered an anxiety attack, and by the 23 April 2021 preliminary hearing the tribunal was considering whether the case could still be tried fairly under rule 37(1)(e).

The tribunal reviewed extensive medical and case-management history, including the Early Intervention in Psychosis Service letters in December 2018 and February 2019, GP records, Dr Walsh's report of 20 July 2020, and Dr Nazir's report of 7 October 2020. Those materials referred to non-organic psychosis or persistent delusional disorder, poor insight, refusal to engage with treatment, and a poor prognosis. The tribunal also noted repeated emails and oral submissions in which the claimant alleged conspiracy, fabricated records, and involvement by the police, NHS staff, and others, together with repeated failure to confine correspondence to the issues in the case.

Applying rule 37(1)(e), the overriding objective, and the authorities it cited including Riley v Crown Prosecution Service, the tribunal held that there was no realistic prospect of the claimant being fit to participate in a fair trial within a reasonable time. It found that any relisted hearing would likely be delayed into mid to late 2022, by which point the events would be even more remote, recollections would have dimmed, and a key respondent witness had retired and was unwell. The tribunal concluded that a fair hearing was no longer possible.

The tribunal therefore struck out and dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. No merits findings were made and no monetary award was ordered. The decision was described as reluctant, and the tribunal recorded that the claimant had been given repeated opportunities to provide medical evidence and engage with the hearing process.