Cases3305008/2022

Claimant v Cambridge Housing Society Ltd t/a Cambridge Housing Society Group

13 October 2025Before Employment Judge TynanCambridgein person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

Claim struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue claim. Claimant failed to disclose documents, prepare witness statement, or comply with multiple case management orders over a period exceeding two years despite adjustments including intermediary support.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)struck out

Claim struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue claim. Claimant failed to disclose documents, prepare witness statement, or comply with multiple case management orders over a period exceeding two years despite adjustments including intermediary support.

Direct Discrimination(sex)struck out

Application to add sex discrimination claim made without particulars in November 2024. Entire claim struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue claim.

Facts

Claimant brought disability discrimination and reasonable adjustment claims against her former employer, a charitable housing society. She claimed to be disabled by ADHD (conceded), autism, dyslexia, PTSD, stress/anxiety and asthma. Events complained of dated back to January 2020. Over a period exceeding two years, the claimant repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal case management orders including providing disability impact statement, medical records, schedule of loss, document disclosure, and witness statement despite extensive adjustments including intermediary support. Final hearing listed for 6 October 2025 was postponed at claimant's request on 27 August 2025 as she had not prepared her case.

Decision

Tribunal struck out claim under rules 38(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with orders and failure to actively pursue claim. Judge found fair trial no longer possible within allocated trial window and it would be disproportionate to re-list, given substantial risk of further non-compliance, forensic prejudice to respondent from witness memory degradation over 6-7 years, wasted costs exceeding £10,000, finite tribunal resources, and claimant's own acknowledgment she had been advised claim had poor prospects of success.

Practical note

Even where a claimant has ADHD and extensive adjustments are made including intermediary support, persistent inability to comply with basic case management orders over years can justify strike out where fair trial is no longer possible and further delay would cause disproportionate prejudice and wasted costs.

Legal authorities cited

Peixoto v British Telecommunications PLC UKEAT/0222/07/CEAArrow Nominees [2000] 2 BCLC 167Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd [2022] I.C.R. 327Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] EWCA Civ 684Smith v Tesco Stores Limited [2023] EAT 11Leeks v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 2024 EAT 134

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 38(1)(e)Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 38(1)(d)Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 38(1)(c)

Case details

Case number
3305008/2022
Decision date
13 October 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
0.5
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
charity
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No