Claimant v Portsmouth City Council
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out under rule 38(1)(c) for failure to comply with tribunal orders requiring the claimant to specify what acts amounted to disability-related harassment. Alternative ground under rule 38(1)(d) for not being actively pursued due to persistent non-compliance and non-engagement over many months.
Struck out under rule 38(1)(c) for failure to comply with tribunal order requiring the claimant to state what reasonable adjustments the respondent should have made. Alternative ground under rule 38(1)(d) for not being actively pursued, evidenced by pattern of non-attendance and failure to provide essential information.
Data protection and subject access request claim struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because the employment tribunal has no jurisdiction over data protection breaches or subject access rights. These matters fall outside tribunal jurisdiction.
Facts
The claimant brought disability discrimination claims including harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments. She repeatedly failed to attend case management hearings, sought three postponements, and failed to comply with orders to provide basic information about her claims including what adjustments should have been made and what conduct amounted to harassment. She did not attend the strike-out hearing and provided no adequate explanation, citing only ongoing issues with a subject access request which did not address her non-compliance.
Decision
All claims were struck out. The disability discrimination claims were struck out under rule 38(1)(c) for failure to comply with tribunal orders and alternatively under rule 38(1)(d) for not being actively pursued, based on persistent non-compliance and disengagement over many months. The data protection claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) as the tribunal has no jurisdiction over such matters.
Practical note
Claimants must comply with case management orders to provide essential particularisation of disability discrimination claims, and persistent non-engagement will result in strike-out even in a self-represented case.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002239/2023
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No