Mrs Andrea Moore v Clarion Housing Group Ltd — 2021

Mrs Andrea Moore remained employed by Clarion Housing Group Limited as a Housing Support Co-Ordinator/Tenancy Sustainment Specialist, although the exact job title was disputed, and was off work through sickness. Her employment had transferred to the respondent under TUPE on 1 April 2019. She brought claims of direct and indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation and unlawful deduction from wages. The respondent accepted that she was disabled but queried the extent and relevant time periods of the disabilities, and denied any failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal recorded that preliminary hearings had taken place on 26 October 2020 and 7 December 2020 and that orders had required the claimant to provide further particulars of her claims. Those particulars were not provided. Employment Judge T Russell found that orders made on 6 October 2020, 26 October 2020 and 7 December 2020 had not been complied with, that the non-compliance was material, that the claimant had not engaged with the respondent's draft list of issues, and that the claimant's representative had failed to attend the 7 December 2020 and 24 May 2021 preliminary hearings.

The tribunal found that the claimant and her representative had been aware that strike out was being considered, but there had been no communication seeking a postponement or explaining the claimant's absence. It also found that the respondent had made repeated written efforts to encourage compliance and that the proceedings had been brought to a standstill, with no progress on the issues for about seven months and the directions timetable months behind.

Applying Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, and referring to Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, Khan v London Borough of Barnet and Rolls Royce plc v Riddle, the tribunal held that this was a case of persistent or deliberate failures to comply with rules or orders and that the claims had not been actively pursued. The tribunal did not strike out on the separate ground that a fair hearing was no longer possible. It considered whether an unless order would be sufficient but decided it would not be, and struck out the claims. No remedy award was made.