Ms Eunice Awala v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited — 2021

The respondent applied to strike out the claim under rules 37(1)(b) and 37(1)(e), and also sought costs arising from the adjourned December 2020 hearing. The Tribunal considered the claimant's conduct at that earlier hearing, the explanations given for the adjournment, the available medical evidence, childcare arrangements, financial information, and the effect of further delay on the respondent's witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the claimant's conduct on 9 December 2020 was vexatious and unreasonable, rejecting the contention that the adjournment was caused by ill health. It found that the claimant had not provided satisfactory corroboration for key matters, had refused to provide GP records, bank statements and other financial records, and had given evidence which the Tribunal regarded as unreliable in several respects.

The Tribunal concluded that the passage of time and uncertainty about the availability of key witnesses meant that a fair hearing was no longer likely to be possible. It struck out the claim as a proportionate response. Although it found that the claimant's conduct met the threshold for a costs order, it made no order for costs, treating strike out as a sufficient and proportionate response in the circumstances.