Claimant v AP Security Limited

Outcome

Facts

The claimant, a security guard with dyslexia, brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against his employer (first respondent) following an incident in October 2023. A TUPE transfer occurred in April 2024 to a second respondent. The first respondent repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders to produce bundles of documents, missing deadlines in October 2024, February 2025, and only producing an imperfect bundle on 17 March 2025, weeks before a scheduled April 2025 hearing. This resulted in multiple hearing postponements. The second respondent and claimant applied to strike out the first respondent's response.

Decision

Employment Judge Davidson struck out the first respondent's response under Rule 38(1)(b) for unreasonable conduct and Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The judge found repeated and deliberate failures to comply with case management orders, misleading communications with the tribunal and other parties, and conduct particularly prejudicial to a claimant with a learning disability. The strike out was deemed proportionate given the persistent breaches over 18 months. As a result, Rule 21 applies and the claimant's claims succeed by default, with a remedy hearing to be listed.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited