Claimant v Chanel Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out due to claimant's repeated failure to comply with tribunal orders for further particulars made by EJ Butler (October 2021) and EJ Buzzard (July 2022). The claim remained insufficiently pleaded to identify issues, the claimant failed actively to pursue the claim, a fair hearing was no longer possible due to delay and resource implications, the claim had no reasonable prospects of success without particularisation, and the claim was presented out of time without just and equitable grounds for extension.
Claim struck out for the same reasons as the disability discrimination claim: failure to comply with tribunal orders for further particulars, failure to actively pursue, no fair hearing possible, no reasonable prospects of success, and presented out of time without just and equitable grounds for extension.
Claim struck out for the same reasons as the other discrimination claims: failure to comply with tribunal orders, failure to actively pursue, no fair hearing possible, no reasonable prospects of success, and presented out of time without just and equitable grounds for extension.
Facts
The claimant, an employee of Chanel since 2014, presented two discrimination claims (December 2020 and June 2022) alleging disability, pregnancy, maternity and race discrimination. She had three periods of maternity leave between 2018-2022 and raised grievances in 2019-2020 and 2021. Despite repeated tribunal orders from October 2021 onwards requiring her to provide further particulars of her claims, she failed to comply. The tribunal made numerous allowances for her personal circumstances (maternity, health issues including IBS, MS, and a late 2023 diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder), but she did not progress the claims. Her line manager Ms Cripps, a key witness, left employment in August 2020. The respondent applied to strike out both claims.
Decision
The tribunal struck out both claims under Rule 37. The claimant repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders requiring further particulars, failed to actively pursue her claims despite over three years having elapsed since the first claim, and the tribunal found it no longer possible to have a fair hearing due to delay, prejudice to the respondent, and disproportionate use of tribunal resources. Both claims also had no reasonable prospects of success due to lack of particularisation, and were presented out of time with no just and equitable grounds for extension under s.123 Equality Act 2010.
Practical note
Even with significant judicial sympathy and repeated extensions for a litigant in person with health difficulties, persistent failure to comply with case management orders for over two years will ultimately result in strike out where the claim remains unparticularised, a fair hearing is no longer proportionate, and the respondent faces mounting prejudice.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2420018/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Chanel Limited
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No