Disability discrimination claim saved from strike out despite repeated delays
An employment tribunal refused to strike out a former employee's disability discrimination claim despite years of missed deadlines, but imposed strict conditions to get the case to trial.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability concerning her dismissal.
- The claimant failed to comply with multiple tribunal orders to clarify her case and provide medical evidence.
- The claimant's health improved by March 2023, and she was deemed fit to participate in a hearing.
- The respondent had incurred substantial costs and was ready for trial, but the claimant had not provided a schedule of loss, disclosure, or witness statement.
- The tribunal found that a fair trial was still possible but issued an unless order requiring compliance by specific deadlines.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
The claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
-
First preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Camp ordered the claimant to provide further and better particulars by 18 June 2020.
-
Second preliminary hearing
The claimant had not provided particulars; further orders were made for medical records and impact statement by 30 September 2020.
-
Third preliminary hearing
Judge Cookson listed a strike out application; claimant had not clarified her case.
-
Fourth preliminary hearing
Claimant withdrew unfair dismissal claim; unless order made for impact statement.
-
Amendment refused
Employment Judge Perry refused amendment; claims limited to direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability.
-
Final hearing postponed
Judge Harding postponed the final hearing due to claimant's medical evidence and lack of judicial resource.
-
Medical evidence provided
Claimant's doctor stated her mental health had improved and she could participate in a hearing.
-
Strike out hearing
Employment Judge Wedderspoon heard the respondent's strike out application.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal refused to strike out the claim but imposed an unless order for compliance.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's repeated failure to comply with tribunal orders and provide medical evidence justified striking out her disability discrimination claims, or whether the case could still proceed to a fair hearing.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim. The judge accepted that the claimant had suffered from anxiety and depression which had contributed to her non-compliance, and that her health had improved sufficiently by March 2023 to participate in a hearing. However, the tribunal imposed an unless order requiring the claimant to provide a schedule of loss, disclosure, and a witness statement by specified deadlines, failing which the claim would be struck out.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was not decided on its merits.
Lessons & takeaways
- Tribunals are reluctant to strike out claims where the claimant's health has contributed to delays, especially if they are a litigant in person.
- Repeated non-compliance with tribunal orders can lead to an unless order, which is a final warning before strike out.
- Providing medical evidence early and consistently can help explain delays and protect a claim from being struck out.
- Respondents who incur costs due to delays can apply for strike out, but tribunals will consider whether a fair trial remains possible.
This case shows the fine line tribunals walk between managing cases efficiently and giving litigants in person a fair chance. The former employee brought claims of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability after her dismissal. Over three years, she failed to comply with multiple tribunal orders to clarify her case and provide medical evidence, leading to several preliminary hearings and a strike out application by London EV Company Limited.
Why the claim survived
The tribunal noted that the claimant's health had significantly improved by March 2023, and her doctor confirmed she was fit to participate. The judge considered that the respondent had incurred substantial costs but concluded that a fair trial was still possible. Rather than striking out, the tribunal imposed an unless order—a final deadline for compliance. This approach balances the respondent's right to a timely resolution with the claimant's right to have her discrimination allegations heard.
What the respondent could have done differently
London EV Company Limited had legitimate grounds to seek strike out given the delays. However, the tribunal's decision suggests that earlier case management—such as seeking a deposit order or more robust directions—might have avoided the protracted proceedings. The respondent's application was refused, meaning the case will proceed if the claimant meets the new deadlines.
Why this matters for similar claims
For claimants with mental health conditions, this case reinforces that tribunals will consider medical evidence when assessing non-compliance. However, the unless order is a clear warning: further delays will end the claim. For respondents, it highlights that strike out is not automatic even after years of delay, especially when the claimant is unrepresented and has a disability. The key is whether a fair trial remains achievable.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim survives strike-out bid despite disability finding
A former employee with 7 years' service saw his constructive dismissal and age discrimination claims survive a strike-out application, but his disability discrimination claims were dismissed after the tribunal found he was not disabled under the Equality Act.
Spray operative with anxiety and depression: strike-out of reasonable adjustments claim refused
A tribunal refused to strike out a reasonable adjustments claim brought by a spray operative with mixed anxiety and depression, despite the employer arguing the claim had no reasonable prospects. The employer had already conceded unfair dismissal.
Bus driver dismissed after long-term sickness absence: strike-out bid refused
A bus driver with 13 years' service was dismissed after being off sick for over a year. The tribunal refused to strike out her remaining claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
Bar Manager with terminal cancer: tribunal refuses to strike out discrimination claims
An employment judge has refused to strike out disability discrimination claims brought by a bar manager with terminal lung cancer, ruling that factual disputes over reasonable adjustments during the pandemic must be heard at a full hearing.