Claimant v DHL Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(b) and (c) because the claimant conducted the proceedings unreasonably and failed to comply with case management orders, including failing to provide a disability impact statement (causing a hearing postponement), failing to disclose documents, and failing to provide a witness statement for the final hearing. The tribunal found persistent and deliberate non-compliance, and that a fair hearing in October 2026 would not be achievable due to memory loss and witness availability issues relating to events from 2018 onwards.
This claim, relating to failure to make reasonable adjustments from 2021 onwards, was struck out on the same grounds as the broader disability discrimination claim - unreasonable conduct and persistent failure to comply with case management orders rendered a fair hearing impossible.
Two claims of disability-related harassment (granted permission to be added on 23 February 2024) relating to 2022 were struck out alongside the other claims due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with case management orders.
The claim for arrears of pay (relating to being put on Statutory Sick Pay from April 2022 with reduced pay) was struck out for the same procedural reasons as the other claims - persistent failure to comply with case management orders and unreasonable conduct of proceedings.
Facts
The claimant brought claims of disability discrimination (relating to back, knee and other conditions from a 2018 work accident) and unlawful deduction of wages after being put on Statutory Sick Pay from April 2022. The case required six case management/preliminary hearings over 2.5 years and two postponed final hearings. The claimant persistently failed to comply with case management orders, including failing to provide a disability impact statement (causing the first preliminary hearing to be postponed and requiring an Unless Order), failing to disclose documents, and failing to serve a witness statement. He provided documents only at the last minute before hearings, stating he preferred to deal with the Tribunal only and not the respondent. The respondent applied to strike out the claim due to the claimant's failures.
Decision
Employment Judge Parkin struck out all claims under Rule 38(1)(b) and (c) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judge found the claimant had conducted proceedings unreasonably and persistently failed to comply with case management orders, though not wilfully in a mischievous sense. Given the claims related to events from 2018-2022, the need to rely heavily on oral evidence, the claimant's apparent memory loss, and respondent witness availability issues, the judge concluded a fair hearing was no longer possible at the re-listed date of October 2026. Strike-out was a proportionate response under the overriding objective.
Practical note
Even where a claimant is unrepresented and does not speak English as a first language, persistent failure to comply with case management orders over a prolonged period can result in strike-out, particularly where significant delay means a fair hearing relying on oral evidence of historic events becomes impossible.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2409512/2022
- Decision date
- 31 May 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No