Strike-out of disability claims set aside after reconsideration: a lesson in proportionality

A case of second chances

This case shows how a tribunal can reconsider its own decision when it realises the initial sanction was too harsh. The former employee, representing herself, was ordered to provide a detailed impact statement explaining how her disability affected her day-to-day activities. She served two statements that the tribunal found insufficient, leading to a strike-out of her disability discrimination claims.

Proportionality matters

The judge initially struck out the claims for non-compliance with an unless order. However, upon learning of the judgment in Minnock v Interserve, which emphasises that strike-out should be proportionate, the judge reversed the decision. The key factor was that the claimant had other claims proceeding to trial, and the disability issue could be properly determined at that stage. The judge also noted that the claimant had now served a third, improved impact statement.

What the respondent could have done differently

FAE Ventures Ltd could have engaged more constructively with the claimant's efforts to comply, rather than immediately seeking strike-out. The tribunal's decision to reinstate the claims, with conditions limiting the claimant to evidence already provided, shows that a more measured approach might have avoided unnecessary costs and delay.

Why this matters

This case is a reminder that tribunals will not automatically strike out claims for technical non-compliance, especially where the claimant is unrepresented and the failure is not deliberate. It also highlights the importance of the Minnock principle: strike-out should be a last resort, not a default response. For claimants, it underscores the need to follow orders carefully, but also shows that there is room for correction if the initial sanction was disproportionate.