Mr J Sears v Hertfordshire County Council — 2026

Mr J Sears brought complaints of disability discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and other payments against Hertfordshire County Council on 11 June 2025. He had worked as a Waste Operative from 25 January 2021 until shortly before the hearing and said he was disabled by anxiety and depression. His grievance concerned a rejected Site Manager application, working at Berkhamsted without electricity, running water or toilets on 26 and 27 September 2024, and unreimbursed mileage for travel to another workplace. These allegations were not determined on their merits.

The tribunal refused Mr Sears's application, made on 5 August 2026, to postpone that day's case management preliminary hearing. Under rule 32, the only potentially relevant ground for granting this late application was exceptional circumstances. The judge accepted that he had attended or was attending therapy, but found that the evidence did not show he was unable to attend by video or engage with the case. He had been able to formulate the application and respond to the council's objection. The appointment evidence concerned 19 June 2026, yet the application was made only on the hearing day.

This was the second hearing Mr Sears had failed to attend. He had not complied with orders to provide medical evidence and an impact statement or respond to the council's draft list of issues. The judge found no medical evidence justifying his absence or non-compliance. Despite the passage of more than a year and two case management hearings, the complaints and issues remained unidentified, and the council could not take a position on disability at the relevant time. Mr Sears gave no date when he could engage, so the judge saw little point in another hearing or further orders.

The judge considered the council's legal costs and management time, the growing difficulty of obtaining evidence as memories faded and employees moved on, and the apparent lateness of the complaints when lodged. The tribunal was not satisfied that a fair trial remained possible or that it could comply with the overriding objective. It dismissed the whole claim under rule 47 for non-attendance and/or struck it out under rule 38(1)(b) and/or (c) for unreasonable conduct of proceedings and/or failure to comply with tribunal orders. No monetary award was recorded.