Mr M Anderson v Respondent — 2023

Mr Anderson presented claims for disability discrimination, constructive unfair dismissal, and unlawful deduction of wages in relation to holiday pay. At the March preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Kemp required further particulars, including particulars of the disability discrimination claim, a disability impact statement, the basis for any knowledge by the respondent of his disability, and a schedule of loss. The claimant was given time to comply, but the Tribunal later recorded that the required particulars had not been provided.

The claimant sent emails saying that he needed more time to obtain legal advice and later said he was having difficulty getting records together. The Tribunal issued a strike-out warning and then an order under rule 38 requiring a GP certificate explaining his non-attendance, with a warning that non-compliance would lead to strike out under rule 37(1)(c) and rule 37(1)(d). The claimant did not attend the final preliminary hearing on 29 June 2023.

Employment Judge MacLean accepted that the claimant was a party litigant and noted his health issues, but concluded that the explanation given for non-compliance was difficulty obtaining legal representation. The judgment recorded that there was no requirement to have legal representation, that the claimant had already been given more time, and that he had been unable to provide facts necessary for fair notice of the claims. Because the respondent still did not have fair notice after multiple preliminary hearings, the Tribunal struck out the claims.

No merits decision and no remedy award were made. The judgment therefore ends with strike out of the proceedings rather than any determination on liability or compensation.