Claimant v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd — 2018

At the preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 23 November 2018, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's applications for a preparation time order, strike out of the respondent's response, and a deposit order. The claimant said the respondent and its solicitor had acted dishonestly by lodging an incomplete version of a 23 December 2016 email, and relied on earlier correspondence, the SLCC materials, and authorities including Nicolson Highlandwear Ltd v Nicolson, Carrasco v Edinburgh Language Academy Limited, and Sud v London Borough of Hounslow.

The tribunal accepted that the email lodged at the earlier hearing omitted a sentence, but found that this resulted from an error in the respondent's internal handling of the document rather than dishonesty, recklessness, or negligence. It agreed with the explanation previously given to the SLCC that the respondent's solicitor had received the document as provided by the client and had no reason to doubt it was complete. The tribunal also noted that the email was not relevant to the disability issue being considered at the earlier preliminary hearing.

On that basis, the tribunal found no conduct that was vexatious, abusive, disruptive, or otherwise unreasonable for rule 76 purposes, and no basis to strike out the respondent's response under rule 37. It also held that the respondent's grounds of resistance retained a reasonable prospect of success, including the alternative case set out in paragraphs 16, 19 and 22 of the grounds, and that a fair hearing remained possible. The claimant's application for a deposit order under rule 39 was refused because the tribunal did not consider any specific allegation or argument to have little reasonable prospect of success.