Cases8000760/2024

Claimant v Orbital Express Launch Limited

21 July 2025Before Employment Judge D HoeyScotlandremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalwithdrawn

The claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal complaint as he had less than 2 years' service and therefore did not have the statutory right to claim ordinary unfair dismissal.

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

The claimant alleges he was dismissed because of his disability (CPTSD). The tribunal refused the respondent's application for strike-out or deposit order, finding the claim should proceed to a full hearing to determine whether the claimant was disabled and whether dismissal was because of disability.

Facts

The claimant worked for the respondent for approximately two months starting in September 2023. He disclosed a disability (CPTSD) to HR and management around mid-September 2023 and to an in-house solicitor in November 2023. He went off sick without submitting fit notes, his probation was not confirmed, and his employment was terminated. He brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination but failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide medical evidence and particulars of his claim, citing mental health difficulties.

Decision

The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the discrimination claim or impose a deposit order. While acknowledging the claimant's conduct was unreasonable, the tribunal found it explicable due to his mental health. The tribunal held that a fair hearing was still possible and that there was no proper basis to conclude the discrimination claim had little or no reasonable prospect of success, as disability status and reason for dismissal required determination at a full hearing.

Practical note

Even where a claimant has unreasonably failed to comply with tribunal orders, strike out may be disproportionate where mental health difficulties provide explanation, the claim is now properly focused, and a fair hearing remains possible.

Legal authorities cited

Hemdan v Ishmail [2017] ICR 486HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd UKEAT/0098/16North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias [2007] IRLR 603Cox v Adecco UKEAT/0339/19/ATRidsdill v D Smith and Nephew Medical UKEAT/0704/05Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] ICR 371Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust [2015] IRLR 208Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames UKEAT/0096/07Tree v South East Coastal Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0043/17

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6

Case details

Case number
8000760/2024
Decision date
21 July 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Service
2 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No