Miss L Nightingale v London Borough of Redbridge — 2020

The claimant presented complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, but the tribunal found that the disability complaint had never been properly particularised despite orders requiring further information about the alleged disability, the statutory provisions relied on, and the factual basis of the claim. The claimant did not comply with orders made in February and May 2020, did not attend two preliminary hearings, and gave no adequate reason for that non-compliance. The tribunal concluded that the repeated non-compliance was wilful, persistent, and without good reason, and that a further order or lesser sanction would not be effective.

The tribunal also found that neither claim had been actively pursued. The claimant had not engaged with attempts to prepare a list of issues, and there had been no substantive steps to progress the case between presentation of the claim in December 2019 and the strike-out hearing. The tribunal considered that the delay caused significant prejudice to the respondent because a central factual issue was whether the claimant had been dismissed or had agreed a consensual termination by voluntary redundancy, and the respondent's direct witness on that issue, Mr Boleyn, was no longer employed and could not be contacted.

Applying rule 37, the overriding objective, and the authorities it cited on strike out, the tribunal decided that strike out was a proportionate response. It struck out the disability discrimination complaint for non-compliance with orders, and alternatively because it was not being actively pursued, and struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because it was not being actively pursued. After the hearing, the judge considered a further email from the claimant with a solicitor's letter and references to stress, anxiety, and printing difficulties, but concluded that this did not justify reconsidering the judgment.