William Moore v East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2026

William Moore brought claims against his current employer, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, for direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and detriments for making a protected disclosure. The tribunal dismissed all claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because he failed to attend or be represented for the duration of the final hearing. It did not determine the merits of the underlying allegations.

The tribunal recognised Moore as a vulnerable party and considered the Equal Treatment Bench Book and Presidential Guidance on Vulnerable Parties and Witnesses. It agreed adjustments including breaks, a clearly signposted timetable, extra time to answer questions and clarification where needed. Moore gave evidence and was cross-examined on 21 and 22 January 2026. He then missed the hearings on 23 and 26 January, reporting that his health had deteriorated and seeking a postponement.

The tribunal refused the renewed postponement application. A fit note from Dr Fowsi Abdillahi certified that Moore was unfit for work until 22 February 2026, but the tribunal found that it did not establish that he was unfit to participate in tribunal proceedings. It gave limited weight to Moore’s own statement about his ability to participate because it was not independent and he was unavailable for cross-examination on it. Moore said a more detailed GP letter had been delayed, but gave no indication when it would arrive. The tribunal also weighed the likely delay until at least early to mid-2027, fading witness recollections, further expense and the effects on other tribunal users.

The Trust applied to strike out the claim under Rule 38(1)(e), arguing that a fair hearing was no longer possible. Although the tribunal saw merit in that application, it refused it because Moore had not had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the application made orally in his absence. The judgment therefore dismissed the claims for non-attendance rather than striking them out.

Before dismissing the claims, the tribunal considered Moore’s emails, statement and fit note and concluded that it had sufficient information about his absence. Two hearing days had been lost, leaving insufficient time to finish his cross-examination, hear six further witnesses and receive submissions. It considered proceeding in his absence but took account of the additional expense, the absence of anyone to call his witnesses and the effect of requiring the Trust’s witnesses to attend on public service delivery. No monetary remedy was recorded. The tribunal explained that Moore could seek reconsideration within 14 days of the reasons being sent, supported by medical evidence addressing his fitness to attend, prognosis and likely recovery period.