Ms C Servais v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis: 3312953/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal, sex and race discrimination is struck out in its entirety.REASONS
[1]The Respondent first applied on 16 December 2024 for a strike out of the Claimant’s claim under rule 38(c) and (d) that the Claimant had failed to comply with the orders of 11July 2024 and that they had failed to pursue their own case. Subsequently, they also relied on r38(e ) that a fair hearing could no longer taken place.[2]By a letter dated 7 February 2025 the Claimant responded to the application opposing it and requesting an extension of time to 24 February 2025, which was agreed by the Respondent.[3]By 25 February 2025 the Claimant had not complied and the Respondent renewed their strike out application, which was repeated on 16 March 2025 and 7 April 2025.[4]On 29 April 2025 the Claimant’s solicitors again provided limited explanation and suggested that documents could be provided by 6 May 2025. They did not in fact do so.[5]At a public final hearing by CVP on 12 May 2025, the Respondent and Claimant made representations to the Tribunal with regard to this application.[6]The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant admitted that the case could not be fairly heard today. They also considered the fact that the Claimant had not provided medical evidence to suggest that they could not have complied with the Tribunal orders between 11July 2024 and today. The Tribunal considered there had been total non-compliance with the orders.[7]The Tribunal noted that the Claimant had caring responsibilities for others, but did not consider that the evidence showed that there was no opportunity for her to comply with the orders, or to give instructions to her solicitor during the whole period from 11 July 2024 to today. The Tribunal took into account the fact that the Claimant’s role was a Communications officer and therefore used to handling correspondence and information.[8]The Tribunal noted that some of the non-compliance was said to be due to a bereavement and illness of the solicitor advising the Claimant. The Tribunal noted that this should not have led to the length and total delay of compliance, as the firm could have covered the work by way of another solicitor. Alternatively, the Claimant could and should have sought advice elsewhere or complied herself.[9]The Tribunal also took into account that having had the benefit of Mr Hall’s representation, the Claimant did not make any application to postpone today’s hearing, despite knowing that they were not ready to proceed and that the Claimant could not be present due to accompanying her mother to a hospital appointment. Nor did Mr Hall suggest to the Tribunal that they are even close to being ready for a final hearing, indicating only that they are now willing to comply with orders.[10]The Tribunal concluded that after such a significant delay and the parties not being at all ready for the final hearing, it is no longer likely that a fair trial can occur. The Tribunal concluded that, taking into account the overriding objective at r3 of the Tribunal rules, in order to ensure that there is proportionality, concern for the saving of expense and avoiding further delay, this claim should be struck out.[11]The Tribunal also considered that the Clamiant had failed to pursue her claim, by her non- compliance and by failing to ensure that her case was progressed, by going to a new solicitor, or undertaking the work herself. The Claimant brought the claim and knew that her criminal case had ended, but did nothing to pursue her Tribunal claim after issuing it.[12]The Tribunal considered whether a lesser sanction would be sufficient to address the disobedience but concluded that there was no evidence or submission that a costs penalty would address the non -compliance and neither would an unless order be practical or applicable in this situation.[13]For these reasons the claim was struck out. Approved by: