Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #unfair-dismissal
- #strike-out
- #individual-liability
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal against the first respondent and disability discrimination against both respondents.
- The second respondent is the CEO of the first respondent.
- The claimant's claim against the second respondent was struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success.
- The claimant failed to particularise any specific allegations of discrimination against the second respondent.
- The claimant's counsel had recently filed a document with particularised allegations, but none were against the second respondent.
Timeline
-
Claim issued
The claimant issued a claim of unfair dismissal against the first respondent and disability discrimination against both respondents.
-
Case management hearing
At a previous case management hearing, the claimant indicated that the second respondent was named because the first respondent may become insolvent.
-
Respondents' application
The respondents filed a skeleton argument applying to strike out the claim against the second respondent or for a deposit order.
-
Claimant's particularisation
The claimant's counsel filed a document particularising the claim, but it contained no allegations against the second respondent.
-
Strike-out hearing
The tribunal heard submissions from both parties on the respondents' application to strike out the claim against the second respondent.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Anderson struck out the claim against the second respondent for having no reasonable prospects of success.
The legal issue
Whether the disability discrimination claim against the individual CEO had any reasonable prospect of success, given the lack of specific allegations against him.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claim against the second respondent (the CEO) on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospects of success.
The key reason was that the former employee, even with the help of a barrister, had failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination by the CEO. A document filed just days before the hearing particularised the claim but contained no allegations against him.
No compensation was awarded as the claim against the CEO was struck out. The case against the first respondent (CSH Surrey) continues.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you name an individual as a respondent in a discrimination claim, you must set out specific allegations against them — a general reference to their role is not enough.
- Tribunals will give you time to particularise your case, but if you fail to do so after several months, the claim may be struck out.
- The possibility of the employer becoming insolvent is not a valid reason to name an individual as a respondent without any evidence of their personal involvement.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the importance of clearly identifying who did what in a discrimination claim. The former employee had named the CEO of CSH Surrey as a second respondent, but the tribunal found that she had not set out any specific allegations against him. Even after instructing a barrister to particularise the claim, the resulting document contained no allegations against the CEO. The tribunal concluded that the claim against him had no reasonable prospects of success and struck it out.
What the losing side could have done differently
The former employee's representative argued that the CEO was a key decision-maker and that disclosure might reveal his involvement. However, the tribunal noted that the time for particularising the claim had passed. To avoid strike-out, the claimant needed to identify at least some specific facts linking the CEO to alleged discriminatory acts. A bare assertion that he 'oversaw decisions' was insufficient.
Why the result matters for similar claims
Naming an individual respondent can be a useful tactic, especially if the employer may become insolvent. But tribunals will not allow claims to proceed against individuals unless there is a clear basis for them. The case confirms that discrimination claims are fact-sensitive, but that does not mean they are immune from strike-out if no facts are pleaded. Anyone considering bringing a claim against an individual should ensure they can point to specific actions or omissions by that person.
Similar cases
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
HR Business Partner's disability and whistleblowing claims allowed to proceed despite strike-out bid
A tribunal has refused an employer's attempt to strike out claims of disability discrimination and victimisation brought by an autistic HR Business Partner who was dismissed after raising concerns about missing right-to-work documents.
Head teacher's discrimination and whistleblowing claims survive strike-out bid
An employment tribunal has refused to strike out most claims brought by a former head teacher against Darul Uloom Al Arabiya Al Islamia, including allegations of disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. However, the reasonable adjustments claim was ordered to be subject to a deposit order hearing.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.