Strike-out over non-compliance: council's defence removed in disability and unfair dismissal case
Staffordshire County Council had its defence struck out for persistent failure to comply with tribunal orders, leading to a finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against a senior practitioner with osteoarthritis.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a senior practitioner in a safeguarding unit from 1 April 2000 until her summary dismissal on 19 November 2019.
- The claimant had osteoarthritis, which was accepted as a disability, and the respondent knew of her condition.
- The respondent failed to provide fully functional Dragon voice recognition software until February 2018, despite requests.
- The claimant was suspended on 6 April 2018 and later dismissed for gross misconduct based on alleged failures to progress cases.
- The respondent's response was struck out due to persistent non-compliance with tribunal orders, and a rule 21 hearing proceeded.
- The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed, discriminated against due to disability, and wrongfully dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a senior practitioner in a regional safeguarding unit.
-
Stress-related absence began
Claimant was absent from work due to stress until February 2017.
-
Returned to work
Claimant returned to work after annual leave.
-
New line manager appointed
AM became the claimant's line manager.
-
Assault by manager
AM grabbed the claimant's shoulder and shook her; the respondent later conceded the assault.
-
Supervision meeting
Claimant was called into a meeting where performance concerns were discussed and a performance improvement plan was threatened.
-
Claimant reported assault
Claimant emailed KJ to report the assault by AM.
-
Dragon software fully functional
Claimant confirmed the Dragon voice recognition software was fully operational and she had received training.
-
Suspension and sick leave
Claimant was suspended on allegations of gross misconduct and signed off sick with stress; she never returned to work.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct; the respondent stated they would report her to the HCPC.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the respondent's defence because of its unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with tribunal orders, and whether a fair trial was still possible.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the council's defence under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, meaning the case proceeded as if no response had been filed.
The tribunal found that the council's conduct—including missing deadlines, failing to provide documents, and ignoring directions—was unreasonable and made a fair trial impossible.
As a result, the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, wrongful dismissal, victimisation, and detriment were all upheld. No compensation was specified in this judgment.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must comply with tribunal orders or risk having their defence struck out entirely.
- Persistent non-compliance, even if eventually corrected, can be seen as unreasonable conduct leading to strike-out.
- Claimants with disabilities should ensure their employer is aware of the need for reasonable adjustments, as failure to provide them can be a separate claim.
- A strike-out means the respondent loses the chance to contest the claims, so the tribunal will decide in the claimant's favour on liability.
What this case shows
This case demonstrates the serious consequences for employers who fail to engage properly with the tribunal process. The senior practitioner, who had worked for the council for nearly 20 years, brought multiple claims including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after being dismissed for gross misconduct. The council's response was initially a bare denial, and despite multiple extensions and orders, it repeatedly failed to provide proper particulars or comply with directions.
The tribunal noted that the council's conduct included missing deadlines, failing to submit documents for hearings, and ignoring specific orders. Even after eventually filing a lengthy amended response, the council continued to be non-compliant. The judge concluded that the manner in which the proceedings were conducted was unreasonable and that a fair trial was no longer possible.
What the council could have done differently
The council could have avoided strike-out by simply following the tribunal's orders. Providing a timely and detailed response, submitting documents when required, and engaging constructively with the process would have allowed the case to proceed to a full hearing. Instead, its repeated failures led to the most severe sanction available.
Why this matters
For employees, this case highlights that procedural failings by an employer can lead to a swift victory on liability. However, it also underscores the importance of the employer's conduct—even strong defences can be lost if the employer does not comply with tribunal rules. For employers, the message is clear: non-compliance is not tolerated, and the consequences can be devastating.
Similar cases
Disability harassment and victimisation: former employee awarded £320,000 after employer goes into liquidation
A former employee with a disability was awarded over £320,000 after an employment tribunal found she was harassed, victimised, and unfairly dismissed by Woods Catering Staffordshire Ltd and its director.
Dismissed during long-term sick leave: employer failed to get specialist medical advice
A quality control technologist with back pain and depression was unfairly dismissed after his employer relied on a GP report and failed to obtain occupational health advice. Tribunal awards £129,970.
Engagement manager loses constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims against NHS board
A manager with nine years' service failed to prove he was constructively dismissed or discriminated against after resigning from NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board. The tribunal dismissed all claims including disability discrimination, harassment, and whistleblowing detriment.
£37,000 for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal: injury to feelings award
A former employee with six years' service has been awarded £37,003.42 after an employment tribunal found Ibco Limited discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments, harassing and victimising him, and unfairly dismissing him.