Claimant v Harrods Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under Rule 47 due to claimant's failure to attend the final hearing without valid justification. The hearing was converted to CVP to accommodate her stated inability to attend in person, but she failed to attend remotely despite having no medical evidence preventing remote attendance. She bore the burden of proof but provided no tested evidence.
Claim struck out under Rule 47 due to claimant's non-attendance at the final hearing. The claimant bore the burden of proving she was disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (substantial long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities) but disability was disputed and her medical evidence was insufficient. Her failure to attend meant her witness statement could not be tested, and she provided no evidence to meet her burden of proof.
Facts
The claimant brought pregnancy and disability discrimination claims against Harrods Ltd. A three-day final hearing was scheduled for 10 March 2025. The claimant had requested written representations only, citing mental and physical health issues including bilateral thumb and shoulder pain, but provided medical evidence (a GP note and NHS letter) that only supported inability to attend in person, not remotely. The hearing was converted from in-person to CVP on the morning of the hearing to accommodate her. Neither the claimant nor her lay representative Mr Elmoussati attended, and no written representations were submitted despite promises to do so.
Decision
The tribunal struck out both claims under Rule 47 due to the claimant's unexplained non-attendance. The tribunal found that reasonable efforts were made to contact the claimant, that CVP was a reasonable adjustment she refused to engage with, and that her medical evidence did not justify complete non-attendance given she had attended GP appointments by telephone. The claimant bore the burden of proving disability and her substantive claims but failed to provide sufficient evidence or attend to give oral testimony that could be tested.
Practical note
A claimant who refuses reasonable adjustments such as remote hearings and fails to attend without medical justification risks strike-out, especially where they bear the burden of proof on disputed issues like disability status.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2221237/2024
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Harrods Ltd
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No