In person For the v Respondent — 2018

These reasons concern a preliminary hearing on 13-15 August 2018 in Mr Julian Hilaire's case against Luton Borough Council. The tribunal was dealing only with the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's complaint that the listed hearing had been moved from Cambridge to Bury St Edmunds after an air-conditioning failure. The tribunal also noted the case's long procedural history, including earlier amendments to add disability discrimination and earlier withdrawals or rulings removing victimisation, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract issues.

The tribunal held that the claimant could not be treated as acting unreasonably merely because he pursued appeals and objected to the scope of the Scott Schedule. It accepted that delay had been caused partly by the history of applications and appeals and partly by listing issues, and it noted that the respondent's witnesses had contemporaneous statements and extensive documents to refresh their recollection. The tribunal concluded that a fair trial was still possible, refused the strike-out application, adjourned the eight-day hearing because the claimant could not realistically attend Bury St Edmunds from Luton, and referred the file for urgent relisting. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were made.