Did not attend For the v Mr D Chapman (solicitor) — 2019

At the preliminary hearing on 25 September 2019, Employment Judge King considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's disability discrimination claims and the issue of whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of s6 Equality Act 2010. The claimant did not attend, having notified the tribunal that he was not coming because of childcare reasons after a change of venue. The tribunal also noted an unless order made after the earlier hearing in July 2019, under which the claims would be struck out unless the claimant showed cause why they should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success.

The tribunal concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success. It found that the claimant had produced no sufficient evidence that he was disabled, or that the respondent knew of any disability. The material before the tribunal included an impact statement, an email referring to difficulties in obtaining medical evidence, and a cut-and-pasted letter said to be from a family therapist. The judge found that the materials did not establish the statutory definition of disability under s6, and did not show the necessary impact on normal day-to-day activities.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had not actively pursued the claims and that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted was unreasonable. It took account of the claimant's failure to attend the earlier preliminary hearing, his failure to attend this hearing, and his failure to provide the original medical evidence he said he had. The judgment records that, even if the claimant had been able to provide further oral evidence, there was no supporting documentation before the tribunal to establish disability.

In the alternative, the tribunal found that the claimant had not established that he was disabled within the meaning of s6 Equality Act 2010. It considered the documents said to refer to trauma, possible PTSD, counselling and Employment Support Allowance, but held that they were insufficient to satisfy the statutory test. On that basis, the claimant's disability discrimination claims were dismissed.