Claimant v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a procedural judgment on a strike-out application. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim, so the substantive discrimination arising from disability claims (7 separate complaints under s.15 EqA) remain to be determined at a future final hearing. The claims relate to alleged treatment connected to sickness absence, dismissal, and symptoms linked to menopause and depression treatment.
This is a procedural judgment on a strike-out application. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim, so the substantive reasonable adjustments claims remain to be determined at a future final hearing. One specific allegation relates to failure to postpone a gross misconduct hearing.
This is a procedural judgment on a strike-out application. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim, so the substantive harassment claims (related to disability and/or sex) remain to be determined at a future final hearing.
This is a procedural judgment on a strike-out application. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim, so the substantive harassment claims (related to disability and/or sex) remain to be determined at a future final hearing. The link to sex arises because of the sex-specific nature of one of the disabilities (menopause).
This is a procedural judgment on a strike-out application. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim, so the substantive direct discrimination claim (disability and/or sex) remains to be determined at a future final hearing.
This is a procedural judgment on a strike-out application. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim, so the substantive direct discrimination claim (disability and/or sex) remains to be determined at a future final hearing. The link to sex arises because of the sex-specific nature of one of the disabilities (menopause).
This is a procedural judgment on a strike-out application. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim, so the substantive indirect disability discrimination claim remains to be determined at a future final hearing. This claim relies on the same factual matrix as one of the reasonable adjustments complaints.
Facts
The claimant, a former police employee who retired on ill-health grounds in May 2022, brought two consolidated claims alleging disability and sex discrimination. Claim 1 related to events from October 2019 to May 2020 concerning disciplinary action over a 2016 shoplifting incident. Claim 2 concerned failed redeployment in 2021. The claimant suffered from depression, menopause and Complex PTSD. The respondent applied to strike out the claims for non-compliance with tribunal orders, failure to pursue claims, and impossibility of fair hearing, after the claimant repeatedly failed to disclose documents and comply with case management directions, resulting in postponement of an 11-day final hearing originally listed for December 2024.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the strike-out application. While accepting there had been significant delays and defaults by the claimant (partially explained by her mental health difficulties but not fully excused), the judge concluded a fair hearing remained possible despite prejudice to the respondent. The delay was inordinate but not intentional or contumelious. Unless orders were deemed a more appropriate and proportionate remedy than strike-out. The final hearing was relisted for March 2026.
Practical note
Even serious and repeated procedural defaults by a litigant in person with mental health difficulties will not necessarily justify strike-out where medical evidence shows improvement, a fair trial remains possible, and unless orders can provide appropriate safeguards for future compliance.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311001/2020
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No