Autistic employee's disability claim struck out after years of delay
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against Nuffield Health was struck out after he failed to actively pursue it for eight months, despite being given extra support due to his autism.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #autistic-spectrum-disorder
- #strike-out
- #failure-to-actively-pursue
- #delay
- #bundle-preparation
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims of disability discrimination relating to events in 2017.
- The claimant was diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder and was found to be a disabled person.
- The claimant was ordered to prepare the final hearing bundle due to his disability.
- The claimant disengaged from the tribunal process from December 2022 to August 2023.
- The final hearing listed for September 2023 had to be postponed due to the claimant's disengagement.
- The respondent's application to strike out for failure to actively pursue the claim succeeded.
Timeline
-
Alleged discrimination
The alleged acts of disability discrimination occurred in 2017.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal in 2018.
-
First hearing
Employment Judge Franey struck out the unfair dismissal complaint due to insufficient service length.
-
First strike-out application refused
Employment Judge McDonald refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim.
-
Case management order
Employment Judge McDonald made a case management order requiring the claimant to respond by 6 December 2022.
-
Claimant's response
The claimant complied with the order and responded regarding missing documents.
-
Preliminary hearing
The claimant did not attend the hearing; issues with the bundle remained unresolved.
-
Witness statement deadline missed
Witness statements were not exchanged as ordered.
-
Claimant re-engages
The claimant responded to the strike-out warning, objecting to the strike-out.
-
Strike-out hearing
Employment Judge McDonald struck out the claim for failure to actively pursue.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the claim for non-compliance with orders or failure to actively pursue it, balancing the claimant's disability against the need for efficient case management.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the disability discrimination claim.
- The claimant had disengaged from the tribunal process from December 2022 to August 2023, missing deadlines and failing to prepare the hearing bundle.
- A final hearing listed for September 2023 had to be postponed due to the claimant's disengagement.
- The tribunal found the delay and non-compliance were not justified, despite the claimant's autism, and that a fair hearing was no longer possible.
Lessons & takeaways
- Claimants must actively pursue their claims and comply with tribunal orders, even if they have a disability that makes the process harder.
- If you are unable to meet deadlines due to personal circumstances, you should inform the tribunal and seek extensions as early as possible.
- Employers can apply to strike out claims that are not being actively pursued, especially if delays prejudice their ability to defend the case.
This case shows the importance of actively pursuing a tribunal claim, even when facing personal challenges. The former employee, who has autistic spectrum disorder, brought disability discrimination claims against Nuffield Health relating to events in 2017. The tribunal had recognised his disability and, unusually, ordered him to prepare the hearing bundle himself to accommodate his needs.
However, after a case management order in October 2022, the claimant disengaged from the process for eight months. He missed deadlines for witness statements and failed to prepare the bundle, leading to the postponement of the final hearing listed for September 2023. When the respondent applied to strike out the claim, the claimant re-engaged only in August 2023, but it was too late.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not actively pursued his claim and that a fair hearing was no longer possible. The delay had prejudiced the respondent, with witnesses no longer available. The strike-out was a harsh outcome, but the tribunal emphasised that the claimant's disability did not excuse the prolonged non-compliance.
What the respondent did right
Nuffield Health made reasonable efforts to support the process, including agreeing to the claimant preparing the bundle. They also applied for strike-out at an appropriate stage, after giving the claimant opportunities to comply.
Key takeaway for similar claims
Claimants must stay engaged with the tribunal process. If you are struggling, seek help or request adjustments early. Delays can lead to your claim being struck out, regardless of the merits of your case.
Similar cases
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.