C issued a claim for, amongst other things, race, religious and disability discrimination. The ET Judge gave
directions for the joint instruction of a medical expert. C failed to attend his appointment with the expert.
R applied to strike out C’s claims due to his failure to comply with directions. The EJ struck out the claims
under r.18(7)(c) on the basis that C’s conduct was ‘scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious’. C appealed.
C was employed by R as a street ranger. During his employment he lodged three claims in total to the
Employment Tribunal alleging discrimination on the grounds of race and/or religion or belief and disability
discrimination based on work-related stress and depression.
R did not accept that C was disabled and a pre-hearing review was fixed to determine disability. EJ
Metcalf gave directions for the joint instruction of a medical expert. C lodged his witness statement
setting out the effects of his illness but did not co-operate with the instruction of the medical expert. R
made successive applications to have the C’s claims for discrimination based on race, religion and
disability struck out due to this failure to comply with the Order. The claims were eventually struck out by
the EJ on the basis that C’s conduct had been scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious. C appealed the
HHJ Clark reviewed the relevant authorities on striking out discrimination claims (Anyanwu & South Bank
Student Union  ICR 391; Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James  IRLR 630; Abegaze v
Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology  IRLR 238). He identified three questions to be considered
by the Tribunal in deciding the issue:
Had the EJ properly considered whether a fair trial was possible, in the light of the authorities?
The EAT held that the EJ had not specifically addressed the issue of whether a fair trial was possible and
had not considered issuing an unless order or separating out the race and religion claim from the disability
claim. As a result the appeal was allowed and the case was remitted for reconsideration by a different
The case is a reminder that it will only be in exceptional circumstances that a discrimination claim should
be struck out and that a tribunal striking a discrimination claim should only do so after it has taken great
care to address all the circumstances of the case. The starting point is that discrimination claims ought to
be heard on their merit.