Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant presented an unfair dismissal claim on 27 March 2021 following ACAS Early Conciliation.
- The effective date of termination was 18 December 2021.
- The claimant had osteoarthritis and was unable to work full-time hours.
- The respondent changed the claimant's territory in 2019 and again in spring 2020.
- The claimant was dismissed after a capability process due to inability to fulfil contractual duties.
- The tribunal struck out the argument that a harassment claim about a rude supervisor in August 2020 was in time.
Timeline
-
First territory change
The claimant's territory was changed in July 2019.
-
TUPE transfer
A TUPE transfer occurred, changing the management team.
-
Second territory change
The claimant's territory was changed again in early spring 2020.
-
Disciplinary process started
A disciplinary process began resulting in a written warning on 25 August 2020.
-
Harassment by Haris Khan
Supervisor Haris Khan was rude and arrogant to the claimant in about August 2020.
-
Claimant signed off sick
The claimant was signed off sick from 16 September 2020.
-
Second written warning
A second written warning was given on 20 November 2020.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation started
ACAS Early Conciliation began on 19 January 2021.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation ended
ACAS Early Conciliation ended on 2 March 2021.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the tribunal on 27 March 2021.
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended on 18 December 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether certain claims were brought in time and whether they had reasonable prospects of success, and whether to strike out or impose deposit orders.
The outcome
The tribunal partially granted the respondent's application to strike out claims.
- The argument that the harassment claim about a rude supervisor in August 2020 was in time was struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success. However, the claimant can still argue for an extension of time on just and equitable grounds.
- All other strike-out applications were dismissed, meaning the claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and other harassment claims can proceed.
- The tribunal did not impose a deposit order on the remaining claims, as they had reasonable prospects of success.
- No compensation was awarded at this preliminary stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- Time limits are strict: claims must be brought within three months of the act complained of, unless it is part of continuing conduct or an extension is granted.
- If you are a litigant in person, ensure you provide a statement on extension of time if ordered, or explain why you have not done so.
- A tribunal may strike out only part of a claim if it has no reasonable prospects, while allowing other parts to proceed.
- Deposit orders are an alternative to strike-out and require the claimant to pay a sum to continue a claim with little reasonable prospect of success.
What this case shows in practice
This preliminary hearing demonstrates how tribunals sift claims at an early stage, separating those with reasonable prospects from those that are unlikely to succeed. The former employee, who had osteoarthritis and was unable to work full-time, brought multiple claims against Walkers Snacks Limited, including unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and harassment. The respondent sought to strike out several claims as being out of time or having no reasonable prospects.
The tribunal carefully examined each claim. It struck out the argument that a harassment claim about a rude supervisor in August 2020 was in time, as it was a one-off act and not part of continuing conduct. However, the claimant can still argue for an extension of time. All other strike-out applications were dismissed, allowing the core claims to proceed to a full hearing.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent could have focused on the merits of the claims rather than attempting to strike out multiple claims at once. While they succeeded on one point, the tribunal found that most claims had reasonable prospects. The claimant, as a litigant in person, might have benefited from providing a statement on extension of time as ordered, but the tribunal gave him leeway.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case highlights that tribunals will not automatically strike out claims that are potentially in time or have arguable merit. It also shows that even if a claim is out of time, a claimant can still argue for an extension on just and equitable grounds. For employees with disabilities, this decision reinforces that discrimination claims can proceed even if some individual allegations are time-barred, as long as there is a continuing act or a good reason for delay.
Similar cases
Lorry driver with 18 days' service: unfair dismissal struck out but discrimination claims survive
A lorry driver who resigned after 18 days and later worked as an agency driver was unable to claim unfair dismissal due to short service, but his disability and race discrimination claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Deposit order non-compliance: discrimination claim struck out after 16 years' service
A kitchen assistant with 16 years' service had her disability discrimination claim struck out after failing to comply with a deposit order. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse for non-payment.
25-year employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after harassment allegations ruled out of time
A process controller with 25 years' service had his harassment claim struck out as too old, and his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims dismissed after a full hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and any discrimination was justified.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.