Mr D McMahon v Romano Dawson Limited t/a Ted Staffing and 1 other — 2023

Mr D McMahon brought claims against Romano Dawson Limited t/a Ted Staffing and Philip Morris Limited arising from the termination of his agency contract after approximately two months. The main claim was for disability discrimination. He relied on facial tumours and a bad back as disabilities, while the respondents disputed that he was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 and disputed that they had knowledge of any disability. The judgment also records that the only remaining non-discrimination claim was for non-payment of statutory sick pay, and that a holiday pay claim had previously been withdrawn.

The tribunal found that the claimant had made no attempt to comply with case management orders requiring him to provide a schedule of loss, medical information, GP records and a disability impact statement. It noted that no disability impact statement had been produced to explain how the conditions amounted to disabilities by reference to day-to-day activities, and that no GP records had been supplied to either respondent. When the issue was explored at the hearing, the claimant said he did not know why his contract had been terminated and was unable to identify any primary facts supporting the case that dismissal was because of disability.

Applying rule 37(1)(a) and rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, and referring to N Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias, Mechkarov v Citibank and Cox v Adecco, the tribunal concluded that the claims should be struck out. It held that the discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that further case management would be fruitless because the claimant had shown no intention of providing the requested evidence. The tribunal also said that the case against Philip Morris Limited was hopeless because the claimant had no contractual or other employment relationship with that respondent.

The remaining statutory sick pay claim was also struck out. The judgment states that the claimant acknowledged it was probably not for the tribunal to deal with this claim, but he would not withdraw it. No monetary award was made.