Claimant v Voiceability Advocacy
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing within a reasonable timeframe. The next available tribunal listing was not before August 2027. Key witnesses (the decision maker Ms Duke and appeal officer Mr Breckell) had left the respondent and were unlikely to be available, causing severe prejudice to both parties.
Claim for unfavourable treatment arising from disability struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) for the same reasons as the unfair dismissal claim: no fair hearing possible within a reasonable time given the August 2027 listing, unavailability of key witnesses, and uncertainty over the claimant's fitness to participate despite her attendance at this preliminary hearing.
Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) on the basis that a fair hearing was no longer possible within a reasonable timeframe. The tribunal found that witness evidence was of real importance to a fair determination, and key witnesses had left and were unlikely to be available in August 2027. The claimant's fitness to participate remained uncertain despite medical evidence.
Harassment related to disability claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The tribunal balanced the severe prejudice to both parties and concluded that the only proportionate response was to strike out the claims given the unavailability of key witnesses and the next available listing not being before August 2027.
Withdrawn by claimant during the hearing and dismissed upon withdrawal under Rule 51.
Withdrawn by claimant during the hearing and dismissed upon withdrawal under Rule 51.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 30 November 2023 from her role with the respondent charity. She brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination (unfavourable treatment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment). The full merits hearing listed for January 2025 was postponed on the day at the claimant's request due to ill health. The claimant had been diagnosed with PTSD and severe persistent depression. A preliminary hearing to consider strike-out was listed but also postponed due to the claimant's health. The respondent applied to strike out the claims on the basis that a fair hearing was no longer possible within a reasonable time.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 38(1)(e) finding it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing within a reasonable timeframe. The next available listing was August 2027. Key witnesses including the dismissing officer (Ms Duke) and appeal officer (Mr Breckell) had left the respondent and were unlikely to be available. The tribunal balanced the severe prejudice to both parties and concluded that witness evidence was of real importance to a fair determination, and that strike-out was the only proportionate response despite being draconian.
Practical note
Even in disability discrimination cases where strike-out must be approached with caution, tribunals will strike out claims where key witnesses have departed and the next available listing causes such delay that a fair hearing is impossible, particularly where the claimant's fitness to participate remains uncertain andmedically unproven despite some limited engagement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200486/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No