Mr M T Shabir v Cygnet Health Care Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2026

At the preliminary hearing on 27 July 2026, the tribunal dismissed Mr M T Shabir’s unfair dismissal complaint against Cygnet Health Care Limited. His employment ended on 11 October 2025, when he had less than two years’ service. He therefore lacked the qualifying employment required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal found serious failures to comply with case management orders made on 28 January 2026. The claimant had not applied to amend his disability discrimination complaint to explain his case, leaving the respondent unable to know what case it had to meet. Information supplied on 17 July 2026 about his impairment and its effects came nowhere near what the orders required. Medical records were also supplied late, and requests for further particulars remained unanswered.

The judge was not satisfied that the claimant’s reported mental ill-health, particularly following two close family bereavements, excused these failures. He had not contacted the tribunal to explain his circumstances or seek extensions. Although the orders were sent after some compliance deadlines had passed, there had been ample time to comply afterwards. However, the unrepresented claimant had missed the January hearing, appeared not to understand the requirement to apply to amend, and appeared to believe that information about his medical condition should come from his doctor.

Asked to explain his discrimination complaint, the claimant said he had experienced low mood, stress, poor mental health and stress-related migraines on the day of the events leading to his dismissal for gross misconduct. He said a colleague had not assisted him and that management had allowed understaffing, increasing his stress. These were his explanations of the proposed claim. The judge said it remained unclear how he linked disability to the respondent’s reasons for dismissal, which concerned mistreatment of a resident.

The tribunal refused the strike-out applications based on non-compliance, unreasonable failure to cooperate and no reasonable prospect of success. It held that strike out would be disproportionate and that prospects could not properly be assessed without knowing the claim. Applying the principle that strike out for default should be reserved for the most serious cases, with more proportionate alternatives considered, the judge gave the claimant a further and last opportunity to provide a properly pleaded complaint. Separate case management orders were made, and the respondent would have an opportunity to amend its response. No monetary remedy was recorded.