Background
John Grantham was summarily dismissed by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council in October 2018 and brought claims including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. After prolonged difficulties clarifying the claims and repeated failures to comply with case-management orders, his claims were dismissed for breach of an unless order. Employment Judge Emerton later restored the unfair-dismissal claim but declined to restore the other claims because they remained unclear despite repeated opportunities to particularise them.
Grantham sought reconsideration, relying in part on a letter from clinical psychologist Dr Adrian Edwards confirming an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis and describing difficulties with planning, processing, organisation and communication. Further non-compliance left the unfair-dismissal case unready for its January 2022 merits hearing. Employment Judge Cadney refused reconsideration of the other claims and struck out the unfair-dismissal claim. Grantham appealed, arguing that the judge had failed properly to consider Dr Edwards’ evidence and possible accommodations.
The Court’s Holding
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that Employment Judge Cadney erred in exercising both discretions. The psychologist’s letter was relevant to whether Grantham’s impairments caused his defaults, whether accommodations might secure future compliance, whether strike-out was proportionate and whether reconsideration was required in the interests of justice. The judge’s reasons did not show that those matters had been addressed.
The errors were nevertheless immaterial. The letter explained difficulties that could account for some delay but did not adequately explain the extensive, persistent non-compliance or identify measures likely to make a fair hearing possible within a reasonable time. The principal accommodation supported by the letter was additional processing time, and Grantham had already received substantial additional time without bringing the proceedings to trial readiness. The EAT therefore upheld both decisions and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- When exercising case-management discretions involving a disabled litigant, an employment tribunal must consider relevant medical evidence, the role of the impairment in any default and whether accommodations could enable effective participation.
- A failure to consider relevant disability evidence will not require reversal where the evidence could not have affected the outcome.
- Disability may justify additional time and resources, but fairness does not require unlimited extensions where persistent non-compliance continues and no workable accommodation has been identified.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that disability-related evidence forms part of both the proportionality analysis for strike-out and the interests-of-justice assessment when relief from an unless-order sanction is sought. Tribunals should expressly evaluate that evidence rather than merely acknowledge the litigant’s impairment.
At the same time, the judgment confirms that a claimant seeking relief should provide evidence connecting the impairment to past defaults and identifying realistic accommodations capable of securing future compliance. An appellate court need not remit where the omitted evidence could not materially alter the result.