Claimant v Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal refused to strike out the claim. The claimant had not adequately particularised his claim despite multiple orders. An unless order was made requiring the claimant to provide full particulars by 26 January 2026, including details of the PCP, the disadvantage caused, and the adjustments sought, or the claim would be struck out without further order.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. His probation was extended twice before he was dismissed on 30 January 2025 following a performance review. He claimed to have autism (not formally diagnosed until November 2025) and alleged the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments during the probationary period. He told two managers he suspected he had autism. The claimant repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide particulars of his claim, an impact statement, and medical evidence.
Decision
The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim for non-compliance and unreasonable conduct. The judge found that while the claimant was in serious default, it was premature to strike out the claim as a fair trial remained possible. An unless order was made requiring the claimant to provide full particulars of his reasonable adjustment claim, impact statement, and medical evidence by 26 January 2026, failing which the claim would be struck out automatically.
Practical note
Even where a litigant in person is in serious breach of multiple tribunal orders, strike out remains a last resort and should only be ordered where it is proportionate and no fair trial is possible.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6006861/2025
- Decision date
- 5 January 2026
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No