Mr Karon Byfield v Solus (London) Ltd — 2023

At this preliminary hearing the tribunal first decided whether Mr Byfield was disabled for Equality Act purposes. He relied on PTSD, epilepsy and a tendency to seizures, but the tribunal found no diagnosis of PTSD or epilepsy and concluded that the evidence of seizures, stress and any effect on normal day-to-day activities was too thin to satisfy s.6 Equality Act 2010. It therefore held that he was not a disabled person and that the disability discrimination claims fell away.

On the respondent's Rule 37 strike-out application, the tribunal considered the discrimination allegations in the appendix together with the time limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Hendricks, Aziz, Madarassy and E v X, L and Z. It held that allegations 1-21 were distinct incidents spread over more than 2.5 years, with significant gaps and different alleged perpetrators, so there was no prima facie continuing act and no basis for extending time on the just and equitable ground. Those claims were struck out.

Allegations 22-27 were in time. The tribunal said the respondent's criticism of their merits had force, but the claims needed to be tested by evidence, so it refused strike out and also refused a deposit order under Rule 39. The constructive unfair dismissal claim survived, and the tribunal directed a further three-hour telephone preliminary hearing for case management. No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded at this hearing.