Mr J A Wright v CitySprint (UK) Ltd — 2021

At the 28 and 29 July 2021 hearing, Employment Judge O'Donnell dealt with preliminary applications in a claim pleaded as disability discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages against Citysprint (UK) Ltd. The claimant sought to strike out the response under Rule 37(1)(b) based on contacts by the respondent's solicitor with his former solicitors and with his mortgage broker, and also sought to strike out the employment-status defence under Rule 37(1)(a). The respondent sought expenses. The tribunal refused all of those applications.

The tribunal found that the claimant's legal premise was wrong. It held that client confidentiality, legal professional privilege, data protection legislation and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act did not make it unlawful for the respondent's solicitor to seek information from the claimant's former solicitors or his mortgage broker. It also held that privilege had been waived to the extent the claimant relied on discussions with his former solicitors about other medical conditions. The tribunal therefore found that the conduct complained of was not scandalous, vexatious or unreasonable, and that there was no basis for saying a fair trial was impossible because no confidential information had been disclosed and the contacts had no connection with the substantive issues.

The tribunal also refused the claimant's prospects application on employment status, holding that decisions in other cases did not determine this case because employment status depends on the facts and contractual reality of the individual relationship. It refused the respondent's expenses application even though it found the claimant's conduct application had no reasonable prospects and that much of his correspondence on the issue was intemperate and disproportionate, taking account of his litigant-in-person status, his genuinely held but mistaken view of the law, his upset, and his health and personal issues. The judge also refused the claimant's application to vary the order of proceedings and his application to set aside the April 2021 order on substantial disadvantage, but extended the compliance date to 14 days from the judgment; the judge further directed that any new annual leave claim under the Working Time Regulations or any discrimination claim based on medical conditions other than cataracts would require amendment, and refused the respondent's request for future conduct orders and the claimant's 18 August 2021 case management application.