Mr Green, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

This was a judgment on the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims and/or to make a deposit order, heard at Norwich by CVP on 9 June 2022. The claimant's pleaded case concerned disability discrimination arising from a September 2019 application for a part-time Finance Director role, a second interview on 8 October 2019, a verbal offer, and withdrawal of that offer by telephone on 24 October 2019. The claimant said the withdrawal was because of disability; the respondent disputed that. The claimant accepted he had disabilities including chronic IBS and prostrate and bladder neck obstruction, which the respondent conceded, and the tribunal also noted other alleged disabilities that were not then conceded.

The tribunal refused strike out. It treated strike out as a draconian and exceptional step and concluded the claimant's conduct was not unreasonable. In particular, it found that his objection to a CVP hearing was not unreasonable in light of the pandemic context, his age, his limited comfort with technology, the lack of a laptop camera, and medical evidence that use of such equipment might exacerbate stress. It also accepted that a late start was supported by the medical evidence, that requiring him to be present throughout the hearing was consistent with equal footing and the overriding objective, and that his advance application to postpone the then-listed merits hearing because of a pre-booked holiday was not unreasonable.

The tribunal also accepted that the transfer application from Watford to Central London was supported by cogent reasons and medical evidence, including difficulties with travel and anxiety about certain routes. It therefore held that it could not say the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim. Finally, on the deposit application, the tribunal held that there remained a clear factual dispute about the reason for withdrawing the job offer and that the claim could not be said to have little reasonable prospect of success. The judgment therefore left all pleaded Equality Act claims to be determined at a full merits hearing.