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.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #strike-out
- #deposit-order
- #litigant-in-person
- #mixed-anxiety-depression
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Spray Operative from 19 May 2017 to 11 March 2021.
- The respondent conceded that the dismissal was unfair.
- The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination for failure to make reasonable adjustments.
- The respondent applied to strike out the reasonable adjustments claim or for a deposit order.
- The tribunal found the claimant was disabled due to mixed anxiety and depressive disorder from 19 May 2017 to 11 March 2021.
- The strike out and deposit applications were refused.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Zirkon Ltd as a Spray Operative.
-
Diagnosis of mixed anxiety and depression
Claimant was diagnosed by a Consultant Psychiatrist with mixed anxiety and depressive disorder.
-
Furlough began
Claimant was furloughed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Employment ended
Claimant was dismissed from his employment.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
First preliminary hearing
Case management hearing before Employment Judge Hawksworth.
-
Second preliminary hearing
Case management hearing before Employment Judge Eeley; adjourned due to claimant's lack of paper bundle.
-
Strike out application hearing
Preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Elliott; strike out and deposit applications refused.
-
Disability status hearing
Preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Alliott; claimant found to be disabled.
-
Judgment sent
Written reasons for disability status judgment sent to parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's reasonable adjustments claim should be struck out for non-compliance with case management orders or because it had no reasonable prospects of success, and whether a deposit order should be made. It also had to determine whether the claimant was disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the employer's application to strike out the reasonable adjustments claim and declined to make a deposit order. The claim was allowed to proceed to a full hearing.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant had provided further particulars as ordered, identifying the alleged provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) and the substantial disadvantage.
- The claim was not scandalous, vexatious, or bound to fail; it had reasonable prospects of success.
- The claimant's non-compliance at earlier hearings was due to practical difficulties (lack of paper bundle) and ill health, not contumelious conduct.
- The employer's application was premature given that the case was still at a preliminary stage.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the hearing dealt only with strike-out and disability status.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should not rush to strike out discrimination claims at an early stage – tribunals expect claims to be given a fair chance to be clarified and developed.
- Claimants who struggle with paperwork due to disability may be given leeway, especially if they are litigants in person.
- A concession of unfair dismissal does not automatically mean other claims (like disability discrimination) are weak or should be struck out.
- Providing clear particulars of the PCPs and substantial disadvantage is crucial to keeping a reasonable adjustments claim alive.
This case shows how tribunals approach strike-out applications in disability discrimination claims, particularly where the claimant is a litigant in person with mental health difficulties. The spray operative had been diagnosed with mixed anxiety and depression before his employment began, and his employer conceded unfair dismissal but challenged his reasonable adjustments claim as having no reasonable prospects.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal refused to strike out the claim or order a deposit. It found that the claimant had provided sufficient details of the alleged PCPs and the disadvantage he suffered, even if the particulars were not perfectly drafted. The judge noted that the claim was not obviously doomed to fail, and that the employer's application was premature – the case had not yet been listed for a full hearing, and further clarification could be obtained through case management.
The tribunal also found the claimant was disabled due to mixed anxiety and depressive disorder throughout his employment, which was a necessary step for the reasonable adjustments claim to proceed.
What the employer could have done differently
Zirkon Ltd might have avoided the strike-out application by engaging with the claimant's further particulars rather than arguing they were insufficient. The tribunal criticised the employer for seeking to strike out the claim before the issues had been fully clarified, especially given the claimant's difficulties with paper bundles and his health. A more collaborative approach to case management – such as agreeing to a list of issues – could have saved time and costs.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that tribunals are reluctant to strike out discrimination claims at an early stage, particularly where the claimant is unrepresented and has a disability. It also highlights that a concession of unfair dismissal does not weaken other claims – each claim is assessed on its own merits. For employees with mental health conditions, the case shows that providing clear details of the adjustments needed and the barriers faced is essential, but the tribunal will give some leeway if the claim has substance.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
Deposit orders and strike-out: what happens when a claimant fails to pay
A manager with 5 years' service had multiple discrimination and unfair dismissal claims struck out after failing to pay deposit orders totalling £125 per claim. The tribunal found some claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.
Clinical director's disability claim dismissed: employer unaware of hypothyroidism
A veterinary surgeon who claimed disability discrimination over her dismissal lost her case because her employer did not know and could not reasonably have known she was disabled due to hypothyroidism.