Claimant v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
All claims were struck out under Rule 38 for scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious conduct, failure to actively pursue the claim, and because a fair hearing was no longer possible within a reasonable time due to claimant's repeated non-cooperation, inordinate and inexcusable delay, and vilification of the respondent's solicitors.
Struck out as part of entire claim for the same reasons as the whistleblowing claim. The claimant's conduct made a fair hearing impossible within a reasonable timeframe, and there was no indication she would cooperate with case management in future.
Struck out together with all other claims due to claimant's unreasonable and scandalous conduct of proceedings, including vilifying the respondent's solicitors, failure to comply with orders, and making it impossible to bring the matter to hearing in a reasonable time.
All claims related to the withdrawal of two job offers. The tribunal found the claimant had conducted proceedings unreasonably and scandalously, with repeated defaults and no indication of future cooperation, making a fair hearing impossible within reasonable time.
Facts
The claimant brought claims of whistleblowing detriment, direct discrimination on grounds of disability and age, and discrimination arising from disability, all relating to the respondent's withdrawal of two job offers made to her. The claims were originally filed in 2018 but had been listed for full merits hearings twice (both adjourned due to claimant's medical condition). The claimant conducted proceedings in an unreasonable manner, failing to comply with tribunal orders, making serious accusations against the respondent's solicitors, repeatedly disputing bundles, and missing deadlines. The case had already been subject to one strike out application which was partially allowed and then overturned on appeal to the EAT, which remitted the matter.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 38 on the grounds that the claimant had conducted proceedings in a scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious manner, had not actively pursued the claim (inordinate and inexcusable delay previously found), and a fair hearing was no longer possible within a reasonable time. The claimant had vilified the respondent's solicitors in written submissions, failed to cooperate with case preparation, and provided no assurance of future cooperation despite being given the opportunity to do so. The tribunal found past problematic behaviour would recur and it was proportionate to strike out the entire claim.
Practical note
A claimant's persistent failure to cooperate with case management, combined with scandalous conduct including vilification of the opponent's solicitors, can justify strike out even where substantive witnesses remain available, if there is no prospect of bringing the case to hearing within reasonable time.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200214/2018
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No