Self-represented For the v Respondent — 2023

This was a public preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out two consolidated claims under Rule 37. The tribunal recorded that the case involved five heads of claim, including complaints of discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability and/or sex, direct disability and/or sex discrimination, and indirect disability discrimination. It also recorded that the respondent accepted the claimant was disabled by reason of depression, peri-menopause/full menopause and Complex PTSD.

The judge reviewed the procedural history and found that the litigation had been marked by significant delay and repeated difficulties with disclosure, schedules of loss, and preparation of the hearing file. The claimant's late disclosure of medical evidence and other documents disrupted the hearing timetable, and the final hearing was postponed from December 2024 to a later window starting in March 2026. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's mental health problems, chaotic living circumstances and limited support partly explained the defaults, but held that those matters did not fully explain the failure to comply with directions or to respond openly and proactively once the strike out application had been made.

Applying Rule 37 and the authorities cited, including De Keyser v Wilson, Weir Valves & Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage, Rolls-Royce Plc v Riddle and Leeks v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the tribunal found that there had been inordinate delay and material prejudice to the respondent, including difficulties caused by the age of the case and the likely loss of at least one witness. However, it concluded that a fair hearing was still possible, that the delay was not intentional or contumelious, and that strike out would be disproportionate. The respondent's application was therefore dismissed, and the tribunal instead made unless orders to secure future compliance.