Ms C Taylor v The Firm of the Red Practice and 4 others — 2023

The hearing was a strike-out application under Rule 37. The tribunal applied the two-stage approach from HM Prison Service v Dolby and Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd, treated the claimant's case at its highest in line with Mechkarov v Citibank NA, and noted the caution required in discrimination cases from Anyanwu. It also referred to the broader Rule 37 authorities, including Bennett v London Borough of Southwark, Bolch v Chipman, and National Grid Co Ltd v Virdee.

The direct disability discrimination claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and (c). The tribunal held that the claimant had not given fair notice of the comparator or the basis on which the decision was said to have been made because of disability. It also held that, even taking the pleadings at their highest, the allegation could not succeed because the claimant's case was that all clinicians were required to see patients in their own room, which did not amount to a difference in treatment for a direct discrimination claim.

The tribunal struck out the reasonable adjustments allegations concerning an occupational health referral and a phased return to work. It held that the pleadings did not properly set out a claim for breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments, that the case did not identify a clear request for either step, and that an occupational health referral is not itself a reasonable adjustment in the sense required by the authorities. By contrast, the separate reasonable adjustments allegation about providing a separate room for seeing patients was not struck out. The tribunal considered that the pleadings could be read as identifying the same PCP relied on for the indirect discrimination claim and that the question of the respondents' knowledge of disability had to be resolved on evidence.

The indirect disability discrimination claim was also not struck out. The tribunal held that the pleading gave fair notice that the alleged PCP was a requirement to see patients in the claimant's room, that reference to government guidance was not necessary to state the claim, and that issues of causation, disadvantage, and objective justification were matters for the final hearing. The tribunal also refused the respondents' broader strike-out application based on the conduct of proceedings. Although it said the claimant's correspondence was lengthy, discursive, and difficult to follow at times, it found that her conduct had not reached the threshold for strike-out and that the issues could be managed through a detailed list of issues and other case management directions.