Tribunal: Orders ignored
A judge has thrown out a conveyancer’s disability discrimination claim against his former firm after showing “a total disregard for case management orders and earlier strike out warnings”.
Employment Judge Shotter decided that a fair trial would not be possible in light of Daniel Arthur’s conduct.
She held the hearing in Mr Arthur’s absence after he failed to attend or respond to a call from the tribunal.
“This case has a long and protracted history of non-compliance by the claimant ignoring tribunal orders and correspondence,” the judge observed.
Mr Arthur’s claim for unfair dismissal against South Wales firm NewBold Solicitors had already been dismissed last year and the claim for unlawful disability discrimination was based on his bipolar disorder.
Disability was disputed and he had failed to comply with orders to provide an impact statement and medical records.
In May, he failed to reply to a strike-out warning sent by the tribunal, leading to the final hearing being vacated and instead the hearing before Judge Shotter was scheduled to consider the firm’s strike-out application.
The judge said she was satisfied that Mr Arthur’s lack of response was “scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct which has directly affected these proceedings with the result that the respondent had carried out some preparation for the four-day trial including booking out witnesses and had been in contact with the claimant on a number of occasions seeking the information he had been ordered to provide, without success.
“The claimant has not responded to the tribunal and ignored a number of strongly phrased letters including a strike-out warning. No reason has been provided by the claimant.”
Mr Arthur – who is now working for a top volume conveyancing practice, according to LinkedIn – had “forfeited his right to a trial”, she went on.
“I bear in mind that the claimant has and remains working in the law and should be aware of the importance of acting reasonably and complying with judge’s order in the litigation he has chosen to instigate.”
The judge said she bore in mind the “high public interest” in determining disability discrimination claims.
“[Counsel] assures me that the bundle the respondent had provisionally prepared included documents which will show the decision to dismiss the claimant was discussed before he went off work sick, and the respondent believes it has a strong defence to the claims brought supported by contemporaneous documents.
“In conclusion, as a result of the claimant’s conduct a fair trial is not possible.”
