Claimant v Buckinghamshire Council
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's defence. The tribunal refused the strike-out application, finding no proper basis for it and that the respondent had behaved reasonably. The substantive discrimination claims remain to be determined at a future hearing.
Facts
The claimant filed discrimination claims on 30 November 2023. Due to administrative issues, the respondent's detailed ET3 submitted on 10 May 2024 was not communicated to the claimant until shortly before a case management conference in September 2024. The claimant applied to strike out the respondent's defence, arguing it was late and the respondent had behaved unreasonably by repeatedly requesting she obtain legal advice.
Decision
Employment Judge Bloch KC refused the claimant's strike-out application. The judge found that Rules 12 and 13 were irrelevant as they relate to rejected claims, not defences. The respondent had behaved reasonably in dealing with tribunal administrative difficulties. Even if there were grounds, striking out would cause enormous prejudice to the respondent by preventing them defending serious allegations, while the claimant suffered no legitimate prejudice from the case proceeding to trial.
Practical note
Administrative delays in tribunal communications do not justify striking out a properly filed defence where the respondent acted reasonably, as the prejudice of preventing a fair hearing vastly outweighs any inconvenience to the claimant.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 3313566/2023
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No