in person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claim form presented on 15 April 2019 advanced complaints of sex discrimination and disability discrimination. The sex discrimination allegation concerned a statement that only girls and directors were allowed to park in the respondent's company car park. The disability discrimination allegation concerned the claimant's case that he was dismissed on 22 March 2019 without investigation or procedure, about a week after he told the respondent that he had a disability. The respondent later conceded that the disability was depression.

At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal initially refused the respondent's applications to strike out or for a deposit, because the claims were fact-sensitive and appeared to have more than little prospect of success. The hearing was then listed by CVP. During the hearing, however, the claimant repeatedly interrupted the judge, made comments about calling the police, threatened to carry out a citizen's arrest, and did not cooperate with attempts to fix dates for a final hearing. The tribunal also recorded that he said he did not care if the claims were struck out.

Applying rule 37 and the principles in Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had obstructed the simplest procedural steps and that a fair final hearing would not be possible. It found that even a video hearing had become unworkable, and that striking out was a proportionate response. The tribunal therefore struck out both the sex discrimination and disability discrimination claims. No remedy was awarded because the claims were not determined on their substantive merits.