Claimant v Richard Newton Consulting Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Respondent's application to strike out claim on grounds of unreasonable conduct, non-compliance with orders, and inability to have fair trial was dismissed. Tribunal found conduct not scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious and concluded fair trial remains possible despite delays.
Claim for automatic unfair dismissal based on disability (discriminatory dismissal) remains to be determined. Strike-out application dismissed by tribunal as matters can be addressed through cross-examination at final hearing.
Strike-out application dismissed. Tribunal found that despite delays and concerns raised by respondent about claimant's memory problems potentially affecting evidence, a fair trial remains possible.
Claim involves allegations of disability-related harassment. Respondent argued delay affected parties' recollections, particularly given claimant's reported memory issues, but tribunal held this goes to credibility and does not prevent fair trial.
Respondent argued victimisation claim relied solely on parties' recollections and delay would prevent fair trial. Tribunal rejected strike-out application, noting matters can be tested in cross-examination.
Wrongful dismissal claim admitted by respondent. Strike-out application concerning all claims dismissed, so wrongful dismissal claim remains to be determined at final hearing.
Unauthorised deduction from wages claim remains to be determined. Strike-out application dismissed, and all claims listed for final hearing.
Facts
Dr Yates worked as research and consultation manager from July 2021 to August 2022. She brought multiple disability discrimination claims and other complaints. The respondent applied to strike out all claims on grounds that the claimant's representative (CAB caseworker) had failed to comply with tribunal orders, failed to respond to correspondence, and caused significant delays including twice-postponed final hearings. The representative explained staffing issues had reduced caseworkers from 6 to 2, causing work pressures and his own sickness absence. Early conciliation ran from October to November 2022, with claim filed December 2022.
Decision
Employment Judge Brady dismissed the respondent's strike-out application. The tribunal found the claimant's conduct did not amount to scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious behaviour, accepting the representative's explanation of organisational difficulties. The judge held that a fair trial remained possible despite delays, noting the claimant's memory problems could be tested in cross-examination and did not prevent fair proceedings. The judge acknowledged non-compliance with orders but found strike-out disproportionate, though this might form basis for costs application after final hearing.
Practical note
Even where there have been significant delays, non-compliance with orders, and poor communication from a claimant's representative, tribunals will be reluctant to strike out claims where there is a credible explanation and a fair trial remains possible, reflecting the draconian nature of strike-out as a remedy.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1601627/2022
- Decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- research and consultation manager
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep