Mr S Ryder v Orbital Express Launch Limited — 2025

The claimant presented an ET1 on 3 June 2024 alleging unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising from his employment with Orbital Express Launch Limited. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because the claimant had less than two years' service and, in the judgment, dismissed that complaint as withdrawn. The disability discrimination complaint was understood to be a direct disability discrimination allegation, and the respondent applied to strike it out, or alternatively for a deposit order, on the basis that the claimant had not engaged with the proceedings and had not provided the information ordered.

After reviewing the claimant's explanations, the tribunal accepted that he had failed to comply with orders and had not actively progressed the claim, but it also accepted his evidence that mental health and family issues had impeded engagement and that he was now able to proceed. The tribunal held that, although the claimant's conduct had been unreasonable, it was explicable and a fair hearing remained possible. It concluded that strike out would be disproportionate and not in the interests of justice, so the respondent's strike out application was refused.

On the alternative deposit application, the tribunal applied rule 40 and decided that it was not satisfied that any specific allegation had little reasonable prospect of success. It noted that whether the claimant was a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, and whether dismissal was because of disability, were matters for evidence at the final hearing. The tribunal therefore refused to order a deposit and directed that the claim should proceed to a one-day CVP hearing to decide those issues.