Miss P Ibinson v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive HELD Newcastle CFCTC — 2024

The Tribunal refused the claimant’s postponement application and then heard the respondent’s application to strike out the claim under Rule 37. The matter had been listed for a final hearing on complaints described in the reasons as unfair constructive dismissal and sex and pregnancy/maternity discrimination. The claimant had not finalised or served her witness statement despite earlier case management orders, and she had not prepared statements for her proposed witnesses.

After further directions at the hearing, the claimant said she would reduce the number of allegations and produce a witness statement, but she did not do so by the deadline set. When the matter returned on 8 December 2023, she still had no witness statement. The Tribunal did not accept her explanations that late disclosure, county court proceedings, or ill health prevented compliance. It found her explanations inconsistent and said they did not show that she was unable to prepare her case.

The Tribunal held that there had been repeated case management hearings and that it had done its utmost to assist the claimant in identifying the issues and preparing for trial. It found that, without a witness statement from the claimant, there could not be a fair trial of the issues within the trial window. Applying Rule 37, and referring to Serco Limited v Wells, Parkin v Leeds City Council, Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union and Ezsis v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, it concluded that the claimant’s conduct had been unreasonable and that strike-out was justified. All claims were struck out and the complaints of unfair constructive dismissal and sex discrimination were dismissed.