Claimant v St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 on multiple grounds: the claimant failed to clarify her claims despite five opportunities; she did not attend two hearings without good medical reason; her conduct was scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious, including abusive correspondence; she failed to comply with tribunal orders; and the tribunal concluded a fair hearing was no longer possible given the claimant's persistent non-cooperation over more than a year.
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 on multiple grounds: the claimant failed to clarify her claims despite five opportunities; she did not attend two hearings without good medical reason; her conduct was scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious, including abusive correspondence; she failed to comply with tribunal orders; and the tribunal concluded a fair hearing was no longer possible given the claimant's persistent non-cooperation over more than a year.
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 on multiple grounds: the claimant failed to clarify her claims despite five opportunities; she did not attend two hearings without good medical reason; her conduct was scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious, including abusive correspondence; she failed to comply with tribunal orders; and the tribunal concluded a fair hearing was no longer possible given the claimant's persistent non-cooperation over more than a year.
Facts
The claimant, a litigant in person, brought claims of age, sex and disability discrimination against an NHS trust in October 2022. Despite repeated orders and requests from the tribunal and respondent to clarify her claims, the claimant failed to do so, instead referring to a 1,455-page complaint document she had sent to the respondent. She did not attend two preliminary hearings scheduled eight months and three months in advance, citing medical reasons but without supporting medical evidence. Her correspondence with the tribunal and respondent's solicitors was abusive and intemperate. She indicated she would not attend hearings until the respondent produced documents she claimed were lost.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all three discrimination claims under Rule 37 on multiple grounds: scandalous conduct (abusive correspondence); unreasonable conduct (failure to clarify claims, spurious reasons for non-attendance); non-compliance with orders; failure to actively pursue the claim; and impossibility of a fair hearing. The tribunal found the claimant's non-cooperation over more than a year, without any indication of change, meant a fair hearing was no longer possible. Strike-out was proportionate given the respondent's inability to understand or prepare to meet the claims and the public expense being incurred.
Practical note
Even for litigants in person, persistent failure to clarify claims, non-attendance at hearings, and abusive conduct toward the tribunal and opposing parties over an extended period can justify strike-out as proportionate, particularly where it becomes clear that a fair hearing is no longer possible and the respondent cannot prepare a defence.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2303649/2022
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 0.5
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No