Claimant v Sutton Housing Partnership Limited

Outcome

Facts

The claimant applied to strike out the respondent's response on the grounds of unreasonable conduct, non-compliance with tribunal orders, and impossibility of a fair hearing. Both parties had failed to comply with case management orders regarding disclosure and witness statements. The claimant argued he could not have a fair hearing without disclosure of certain documents (including Google messages) which he believed were crucial to his case. The respondent had attempted to engage with the claimant but the claimant had not always responded, and the claimant himself only provided disclosure on the day of the hearing.

Decision

The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the response. It found that while the respondent had not fully complied with case management orders, neither had the claimant. The respondent's conduct was not scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. The tribunal determined that a fair trial was still possible with further case management orders providing for proper document searches.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited