Not attending and not represented. For the v Respondent — 2024

This reserved judgment concerned four consolidated claims: two disability discrimination claims in case numbers 3306236/2021 and 2206714/2021, a claim in 2204457/2022 described as automatically unfair dismissal with an interim relief application, and a further automatically unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim in 2208248/2022. At the strike-out hearing on 5 March 2024, the claimant did not attend or be represented. Employment Judge Laidler also made a Rule 50 anonymity order because the reasons referred to the claimant's mental health conditions.

The tribunal found that the claimant had acted scandalously, unreasonably and/or vexatiously, had failed to comply with tribunal orders, and had not actively pursued the claims within the meaning of Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. It relied on a pattern of emails sent by the claimant to the tribunal, the respondent's solicitors and third parties, including allegations of hate crime, corruption, dishonesty and discrimination against the respondent, the tribunal and his former representative. It also relied on the claimant's failure to disclose documents ordered for the case management process, his failure to attend the 23 May 2023 case management hearing, and his failure to attend the 5 March 2024 hearing after receiving the respondent's skeleton argument.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent acknowledged the claimant's PTSD and bipolar affective disorder as disabilities under the Equality Act 2010, but said it could not make reasonable adjustments in the absence of the claimant's cooperation and attendance. Applying the strike-out authorities it cited, including De Keyser, Bloch, Emuemukoro and Smith v Tesco, the tribunal concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible, taking account of the age of the first claims, the lack of progress since the interim relief hearing in February 2023, and the delay that would follow if the claims were relisted. It considered lesser sanctions such as an unless order or costs but concluded they would not advance the litigation. All claims were therefore struck out, and no monetary award was made.