(sitting alone) Mr W Tracey v Limited (in Liquidation) — 2019

The claimant had brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The respondents applied to strike out all or part of the claim, arguing non-compliance with orders for further particulars and no reasonable prospect of success, and alternatively sought a deposit order. The claimant's representative argued that the claimant had attempted to comply, was now represented, and that the pleaded and factual issues required a hearing.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant had provided enough detail for the claim to proceed. Although the claimant had not complied with the letter of the order, the tribunal considered that he had complied with its spirit and that any non-compliance was relatively minor. The tribunal also found that disputed facts meant the claim could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success.

For disability discrimination, the tribunal found that the claimant had not properly complied with the order for specification, but took a holistic approach. It considered relevant that the claimant had attempted to comply, had not wilfully refused, and was now legally represented. The tribunal found that it could not say the discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, including because issues about allowances for disability during the disciplinary process required determination.

The tribunal also refused a deposit order. It noted the claimant's limited means and found that, given the disputed facts and the connection between the unfair dismissal and discrimination issues, it could not say either claim had little reasonable prospect of success. Further particulars were ordered, but not as an unless order.