Mr Norman McPhedran v Respondent — 2017

Mr Norman McPhedran presented claims of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and disability discrimination. GIST Limited denied unfair dismissal, said the dismissal was for capability, and denied that the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 or that it had discriminated against him.

At a case management preliminary hearing on 25 May 2017, the tribunal recorded that the factual and legal basis of the disability discrimination claim was unclear. It directed the claimant to provide further and better particulars, including a disability impact statement, and also directed him to provide specification and supporting documentation for his schedule of loss. The claimant was warned that compliance was required and that the respondent needed fair notice of the case it had to meet.

The claimant did not comply with the Tribunal Orders dated 31 May 2017 and did not respond to repeated reminders from the tribunal and the respondent. By the preliminary hearing on 19 October 2017, he had not attended, had not sought a postponement, and had not provided any written representations. The tribunal found that there had been non-compliance and that the claims had not been actively pursued for around five months.

Applying Rule 37 and the overriding objective in Rule 2, the tribunal decided that strike out was appropriate. It noted that a fair hearing might still have been possible, but there remained an unresolved issue as to whether the claimant was disabled, and the tribunal considered that an unless order was unlikely to secure compliance. The unfair dismissal claim and the disability discrimination claim were therefore struck out. No award or other remedy was made.