Mrs M A Hogg v Outcomes First Group Ltd: 8000201/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No 8000201/2025
Between
Mrs M A HoggClaimantOutcomes First Group LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge J M HendryMr H Menon (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 1 August 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The following claims are struck out as being out of time and the claimant not being able to demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable to lodge them on time: failure to pay the minimum wage, unpaid holiday pay and whistleblowing detriments.[2]The following claims are struck out as being out of time and the claimant not being able to demonstrate that it was just and equitable for the claims to be heard late: disability discrimination and harassment on the grounds of disability.[3]The claim made under the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 having been withdrawn is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]This case has a little history which I will recap. A preliminary hearing took place on 6 June 2025 in order to consider the respondent’s strike out application which had been made on the grounds of time bar.[2]The case had previously proceeded to a case management preliminary hearing on 21 March 2025 before Judge King. Following that hearing he issued a note requiring the claimant to prepare an impact statement, further information in relation to her disability and other claims being advanced. He identified the issue of time-bar in relation to the claims that were made.[3]In paragraph 3 of the note he set out the complaints which are as follows: “I. Failure to pay the National Minimum Wage; II. Equal pay – like work; III. Unpaid holiday pay; IV. Whistleblowing detriment; V. Unauthorised deductions from wages, unrelated to her National Minimum Wage claim; VI. Harassment, on the ground of disability; VII. Disability discrimination, unspecified; VIII. Less favourable treatment on the grounds of part-time status (The latter claim was withdrawn).[4]He also recorded the whistleblowing claims in these terms: “8…….The claimant asserts that she made these disclosures(i) in an email to the respondent’s Ben Gannon in May 2022(ii) regularly at shift handovers throughout 2022 at which times she would tell Ben Gannon and Alasdair Fearful in addition to various day care staff(iii) verbally to Ben Gannon, Paul Gallo, Alasdair Fearful and Andrew Donaldson at various times prior to August 2022, and (4) to Kenny Graham and Chris Kirkbridge at disciplinary hearings in August 2022.[9]Detriments - The detriments that she claims to have suffered as a result of having made the disclosures are as follows:a. that she was spoken to dismissively and also on occasion ignored by Ben Gannon and Adrian Clifford between her first disclosure in May 2022 and 13 November 2023 when she went off on long-term sickness Absence;b. that the respondent misused its disciplinary process against her in August 2022, that process having been managed by Ben Gannon and Kenny Graham;c. that during the disciplinary process, Patrick Gannon sent her to work in Perth as punishment for making the disclosures;d. that Adrian Clifford was obnoxious to her in front of other staff on an occasion in April 2023;e. that Alasdair Fearful failed to carry out a risk assessment in line with the respondent’s safeguarding review policy, which led to the claimant being placed in an unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous situation with the parent of an aggressive pupil on 29 August 2023 at Perth;f. that on 10 October 2023, Alasdair Fearful e-mailed her, asking her to work at the respondent’s Falkland premises. The claimant believes that this request was deliberately made so that she would come into contact with an aggressive pupil with whom she had previously had a dangerous situation. When she arrived at Falkland, her team leader, Paul Gallo, was surprised to see her.” 5. The claimant, he noted, was a party litigant and the background to the claims “complex”. She had worked as a Care Support Worker supporting children at residential school establishments in Falkland and Perth. 6. Prior to the hearing on 6 June the respondent’s agents lodged a bundle for use at the hearing. They also put the claimant’s documents in a separate bundle. The respondent’s bundle included a statement from Mr Patrick Gannon, the claimant’s head of service. Hearing 7. At the outset, I explained to the claimant that I could not act as her lawyer but would be happy to explain the process, procedures and any terminology she was unsure of to her as we worked our way through the claims. 8. I briefly outlined the claims. I had noted that she had expanded on her ET1 narrative by adding detail in a diary of events and in a separate timeline. It seemed clear that the claimant was also in effect making claims for breach of contract but as she was still en employee of the respondent I explained that these could not be made in the Employment Tribunal. 9. I also noted from the papers that the claimant had various medical difficulties and I advised her that if she needed a break during the proceedings she should ask but that I would normally break mid-morning and mid-afternoon.
Hearing
[10]Mr Menon then addressed various “housekeeping” matters. He confirmed that parties had the appropriate documents. He outlined these as being the strike-out application of 28 May, the PH bundle, the claimant’s documents (the claimant’s bundle), a witness statement from Mr Gannon and copies of the appropriate legislation.[11]There was some discussion about which documents the claimant had received and when. She indicated that she could look at the documents in the Joint Bundle on her mobile telephone. (She was using her computer for the hearing and this could not access the documents). I advised her that if she was referred to a particular document and if she didn’t have it in front of her digitally or in hard copy then the document or the essential parts of the document could be read to her or she could ask to be given a chance to check the document’s contents. The claimant explained that although the respondent’s lawyers were saying that they had sent the PH bundle to her on 28 May, she had experienced computer difficulties earlier and had lost the original copy and her other papers. I reassured her that what was in the respondent’s PH bundle was not anything the claimant should be unfamiliar with as it was a collation of the documents that had passed between parties with many originating from her.
Evidence
[12]Mr Menon then called Mr Gannon as a witness to speak to his witness statement. In short, his evidence was that the various claims made by the claimant were not issues the respondent’s managers thought were current. He explained that the difficulties she alluded to occurred in 2022 and 2022. Her line manager was no longer with the business. The claimant had gone off ill in November 2023 and had not returned to work since then. The company had referred the claimant to occupational health in December 2024 (RBp99-101). The report said that she suffered from chronic pain but recommended that she was able to return to work with adjustments. Mr Gannon did not know the detail of the claimant’s complaints.[13]Mr Gannon appeared to be a wholly professional witness. Because of the passage of time there were details he could not recall. He displayed no antipathy towards the claimant. I found his evidence both credible and generally reliable.[14]Once Mr Gannon had given evidence the claimant then gave evidence about the general background to the difficulties that she had experienced over a period of a couple of years and how she had reacted to these. Her mental health clearly been impacted by a cumulation of a series of events. The claimant worked for the respondent company that runs schools for children that have autism. It is stressful and challenging work which she enjoyed. The claimant had lodged detailed paperwork setting out the background to events.[15]There appeared to be two main threads. The first was that she had annualised hours and was employed differently to most staff. The respondent had introduced a four day working week and after a trial adopted it. She believed that this had the unfair result of meaning she was paid less than full time workers on an hourly basis and below the minimum wage. She complained and the matter was never satisfactorily resolved. The second thread was that she felt unfairly treated in relation to a particular pupil who was aggressive to her and whose mother complained about her to the school. She videoed the same pupil while he was misbehaving and this led to a disciplinary matter for which she received a final written warning in December 2023.[16]In addition, the claimant fell and was injured at work on the 10 October 2023. She suffered chronic pain and began to become depressed and suffer from low mood and tiredness. Her health difficulties were recorded by her in her impact statement and in a letter from her G.P. (RBp9). In addition, the respondents had the claimant examined by their occupational health providers Medigold (RB99-101). These disciplinary matters and the difficulties she was experiencing at work led to a deterioration in her heath and she was on long term absence. Her sick pay had run out. The claimant referred me to the documents she had lodged setting out the background and responding to the respondent’s written position.[17]She explained that her problems at work seem to have started with difficulties she had with a particular parent of a child she helped look after at the premises in Falkland. She had worked there many years. One of the parents took against her for reasons she was not sure about and complained to her employers. Ultimately, the respondent had moved her to premises in Perth and she was aggrieved at this. The claimant felt that this parent had targeted her and that her employers had not been supportive.[18]The claimant had found these processes including the fact that she was placed on a safeguarding investigation very stressful and this had an impact on her heath and self-confidence. The claimant had been moved from the premises in Falkland to Perth because of the issues with the child but had been asked to return to work in Falkland temporarily.[19]I reminded her that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over personal injury claims. These need to be raised in the Sheriff Court within three years of the accident. Similarly, as an employee she could not raise breach of contract claims in the Employment Tribunal while the employment was continuing but could raise such claims in the local Sheriff Court.[20]The claimant was clearly aggrieved at a number of matters that took place over a period of time in 2022 and 2023. She claimed various actions of the employers amounted to detriments following what she regarded as being her whistleblowing.[21]We explored these matters. She told the Tribunal that she had raised numerous ‘‘concerns’’ over a lengthy period. Some of these appeared to be differences of view on how the premises were being run for example over staffing levels at night. She said that she had been in contact with ACAS for advice in 2023 and had tried to resolve matters internally.[22]The claimant had called ‘‘Safecall’ to make whistleblowing disclosures on the 29 November 2024. This was an organisation nominated by her employers to deal with such complaints. I noted that this was almost a year after she had gone off sick. I asked her why she hadn’t raised the claims that she had now set down in writing at the time that these events principally occurred namely in 2022. Her explanation was that she had gone off sick and had been too unwell to attend to these matters. She had been depressed and tired. She accepted that she had experienced good and bad days but had found it very difficult to cope with the whole situation and address these issues which she found upsetting. She mentioned that her computer had crashed in May and this had been very upsetting for her and impacted on her being able to finalise her paperwork.[23]I queried that although she had concerns about the way her employers were acting in relation to various matters such as staffing levels, outside lighting and so on that there was nothing in her evidence (including her papers) that made it clear that she had made specific whistleblowing disclosures to her employers as she said she had. I suggested that there was a difference between raising a concern and a protected disclosure or whistleblowing allegation which had to go further than expressing an opinion but had to allege particular failings or wrongdoing and a breach of some obligation by the employer. She stressed that her whistleblowing all related to her concerns over health and safety matters and these had been set out in writing by her.[24]In answer to questions from Mr Menon the claimant accepted that she had received a copy of her contract. She confirmed that the disclosures related to matters she had experienced at work. He closely questioned her about the failure to adhere to Tribunal orders and the delays that had occurred. The claimant said that her computer had crashed and she had lost all her information. She had complied with outstanding orders on the 22 May and had apologised. She denied that she had deliberately acted in an unreasonable way in the proceedings. She had done her best she said but was still in poor health and unfamiliar with Tribunal processes.[25]The claimant reiterated that she thought that the disciplinary process was flawed and unfair.[26]I also queried why the claimant had not taken holidays more recently explaining that as an employee holidays continue to accrue even when she is absent though illness but they must be claimed.[27]The claimant is an intelligent person who understands the claims she is making. She has had some support from Mrs Moir who has some knowledge of employment matters. The claimant is a patently honest person who has a genuine sense of grievance at the way she perceives events turned out at her work. These concerns were wide ranging. The disciplinary action taken against her and her injury led to her absence from work because of the pain of the injury but also through workplace stress/anxiety. The passage of time has had an impact on some of the detail of her recollection but overall she was a reasonably reliable historian of events but I had concerns about her objectivity and could not say she was wholly credible. Submissions[28]Mr Menon followed the submissions made in the strike out application quite closely but making points about the evidence we had heard. He urged the Tribunal to find Mr Gannon a reliable and credible witness. He was somewhat critical of the claimant’s actions in not engaging as fully or as quickly as she could have with the Tribunal process and delaying the provision of further specification sought. The claimant’s response was that she could not cope and was unfamiliar with Employment Tribunal procedures and none of the problems were deliberate on her part.[29]Mr Menon sought strike out of the various claims. He argued that they had no reasonable prospects of success and that the claimant’s conduct of the claim was and/or vexatious. Further, she had not complied with the orders. He sought strike out or a suitable deposit order to be made. He sought expenses.[30]Counsel then briefly referred to the chronology. Early conciliation was not applied for until November 2024. The claimant was absent from 13 November 2023 the previous year. He then referred the Tribunal to the joint bundle and the contract that applied to the claimant. Salary was paid in arrears in terms of Clause 7.1. by transfer to the claimant’s bank account on the last working day of the month. Accordingly, save for any sick pay payable all pay due was payable, by the latest, on Thursday 30.11.2023, which was the last working day of the month. Under s.23(2) ERA the claimant had until 29.2.24 (2024 being a leap year) to present a claim for deduction from wages, whether in respect of a shortall on the NLW or otherwise In fact, when the claimant commenced early conciliation on 11.11.24 she was already 8 months and 13 days out of time. This claim was presented on 24.1.25, which was 10 months and 27 days late.[31]Under clause 3 of her Contract, she was entitled to a maximum of 120 days sick pay on full pay and another 120 days on half pay. So, that meant that the sick pay entitlement expired no later than 240 days after she went off sick on 13.11.23. The 240 days’ sick pay entitlement therefore extended to Wednesday 10.7.24 and the claimant had no entitlement to be paid anything after this date as long as she remained off sick. The primary 3 months less 1 day limitation period in s.23(2) ERA therefore, expired on 9.10.24. Since EC Day A was on 11.11.24, she was already 1 month and 2 days late at this juncture. By the time the claim was presented on 24.1.25, she was 3 months and 16 days late in respect of any deduction of wages relating to sick pay.[32]Turning to whistleblowing detriment in response to the question where she was when the alleged detriments took place her answer was “at work” (p.82). She had not been at work since November 2023.The claims, were out of time.[33]There was, he submitted, no properly pled basis for harassment under the Equality Act. The claimant said that it occurred at “various times at Falkland House School and FHS Perth”. The factual basis for such claims was unclear as was the reason why she thought she was discriminated against because of her disability. Any harassment must have occurred before she went off sick in 2023 and be out of time.[34]If the claimant had been underpaid holiday pay she had, under reg.13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations three months less one day to bring claims denied by the employer. The claimant went of sick on 13.11.23. Her holiday year as provided by clause 9.3 of her contract, was from 1st August to 31 July (p.65). Following her sick leave, she has not indicated that she wants to take any holidays, and no holiday requests have been made or denied. To the extent that her holiday claim includes a claim for allegedly refused holidays before she went on sick leave, these are time barred by reg.30(1)(a)(i). The 3 months less 1 day time limit expired under reg.30 and expired on 12.2.24. The early conciliation day (EC) was 11.11.24 which was already 9 months late. The EC does not stop time running and when the claim was presented on 24.1.25 it was 11 months and 13 days late.[35]Mr Menon addressed the unsatisfactory way that the claimant had complied with orders. At the preliminary hearing on 21.3.25 before Judge King, it was ordered in para 3 that the claimant must by 18.4.25 “confirm in writing to the respondent and the Tribunal the reason why her claim was not commenced until 11 November 2024, which on the face of it is out of time.” (p.86) The claimant asked for an extension to comply which was granted by Judge who allowed a further 14 days to comply extending the time for compliance to 1.5.25. The claimant was warned that a further extension was unlikely. On 20.5.25, the Tribunal advised the claimant that she had not yet complied with the order and was considering a strike out warning. The claimant responded on 22.5.25 stating that her computer had crashed and that her response would be close of business the following day. This did not happen. There had been a series of such delays.[36]In the circumstances, the position was that no acceptable evidence has been provided by the claimant on the issue of the extension of time to allow the Tribunal to determine whether time should be extended under the reasonably practicable or just and equitable jurisdiction relevant to each head of claim.[37]He continued that the respondent had received an OH report from Medigold dated 17.12.24 (p.99-101) which refers to the claimant’s symptoms following an accident at work. It does not support the mental conditions asserted by the claimant. Judge had made an order (p.86) providing that the claimant should “provide to the respondent and the Tribunal any medical reports in her possession, or which can be obtained from her GP outlining the diagnosis of her condition of stress, anxiety and depression and the occasions that the claimant has consulted with her medical advisors’’. The claimant failed to provide such evidence. In response to questions aimed at clarifying her position on disability discrimination and harassment on the ground of disability she simply repeated the details of the alleged detriments she had claimed to have suffered because she had made protected disclosures.[38]The claimant was ordered to provide full particulars of her disability discrimination claim and harassment claim by 18 April 2025 but that she has not complied with this order, as later extended by Judge. It follows therefore, that the claimant has no reasonable prospect of success establishing these claims and they should be struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success under reg.38(1)(a). Further, and in the alternative the claims stand to be struck out under reg.38(1)(b) for unreasonable and vexatious behaviour and/or (c) for a continuous and persistent failure to comply with Tribunal orders, despite extensions and warnings. In the event that the Tribunal declines to strike any head of claim out, the respondent submits that (for the reasons stated above) such head of claim has little prospects of success and that the same should be made the subject of a deposit order.[39]The Tribunal should make orders to advance any remaining claims and the existing claim of equal pay (like work) which was not subject to strike out or time bar. Discussion and Decision[40]The Employment Tribunal has the power to strike out claims under Rule 38: “Striking out 38.—(1) The Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party, strike out all or part of a claim, response or reply on any of the following grounds— (a)that it is scandalous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success; (b)that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant or the respondent (as the case may be) has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious; (c)for non-compliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the Tribunal; (d)that it has not been actively pursued.”[41]The chronology of events in relation to the raising of proceedings was not in dispute. The claimant had left work on long term absence on the 17 November 2023 and had applied for early conciliation on 11 November 2024. There appeared to be nothing in the intervening period from the claimant starting this absence to be capable of reviving the claims she was making which all predated her absence. Indeed, the claimant’s whistleblowing claims start in 2022.[42]The claimant accepted that in terms of her contract salary was paid in arrears in terms of Clause 7.1. The last date for ‘‘ordinary’’ pay was the 30 November 2023. Under s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 the claimant had until the 29 February 2024 (2024 being a leap year) to present a claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The claims presented were 10 months and 27 days late.[43]Under clause 3 of her contract the claimant was entitled to 120 days sick pay on full pay and another 120 days on half pay. As Mr Menon submitted the 240 days’ sick pay entitlement elapsed on Wednesday 10 July 2024 and the claimant had no entitlement to be paid anything after this date as long as she remained off sick. The primary time limit of 3 months less 1 day limitation period in s.23(2) ERA therefore, expired on 9.10.24. By the time the claim was presented on 24.1.25, she was 3 months and 16 days late in respect of any deduction of wages relating to sick pay.[44]Considering the issue of whistleblowing, I had some concerns that the claimant could not point to clear disclosures that complied with the terms of the Act. She could go no further when asked about detriments than to say that they happened at work. As she has not been at work since November 2023 the claims are out of time.[45]It is clear that the monetary claims and whistleblowing detriment claims are all out of time. The claimant has not convinced the Tribunal that it was not reasonable practicable to raise the claims either at the time they arose or later. I noted that the claimant had discussed matters with ACAS and sought advice from them in mid 2023. I think that this is significant. She believed that she had valid complaints and she is an intelligent and capable person. The claimant had her accident in October 2023 and the claims could have been raised before this or later. Although, I accept that she faced many health difficulties after this date as she put it she had good and bad days and could have pursued these matters from her home she was feeling better.[46]If as the respondent’s Counsel submitted the claimant had been underpaid holiday pay she had, under reg.13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations three months less one day to bring claims. Following her sick leave, she had not indicated that she wanted to take any holidays, and no holiday requests have been made or denied. To the extent that her holiday claim includes a claim for allegedly being refused holidays before she went on sick leave, these are also time barred by Reg.30(1)(a)(i). Just and Equitable Extension[47]Turning to the disability discrimination claims if any harassment or disability related discrimination occurred this almost certainly occurred before the sickness absence. Indeed, the claimant regarded the respondent moving her workplace to Perth and the disciplinary action taken against her as harassment or detriments for whistleblowing. I accordingly accept that any such claims must be out of time.[48]The claimant can and did seek, an extension under Section 123 of the Act. The Tribunal has a wide discretion to extend the time limit and there is no definitive checklist that it must adhere to. (Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health v. Morgan [2018] EWCA CIV 640). This means the exercise of the discretion to extend time because it is just and equitable to do so involves a multi factorial approach, taking into account all the circumstances of the case in which no single factor is determinative of the starting point. The Tribunal must balance the interests of both parties and must consider the issue of prejudice. The prejudice to a claimant is obvious in that they would lose their statutory right to pursue a claim. If granted the respondent would face a claim that would otherwise be time barred.[49]In the well-known judgment of the Court of Appeal in Robertson v. Bexley Community Centre Lord Justice Auld said: “The Tribunal, when considering the exercise of its discretion, has a wide ambit within which to reach a decision”. The law does not require exceptional circumstances, it simply requires, that an extension of time should be just and equitable (Pathan v. London South Islamic Centre EAT 0312/13). The onus is on the claimant to convince the Tribunal that it is just and equitable to extend the time limit and the extension must be justifiable. I am entitled to take account of the merits of the complaints being advanced (Kumari v. Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (2022 EAT 123).[50]The claimant lodged details of her alleged disclosures as part of the proceedings. Regrettably they were not in the bundles. This is what she wrote: “Key Points: For the Whistleblowing complaint “The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998”. I believe Management failed in their “Duty of Care” (Health & Safety at Work Act 1974). Not only to protect Me but also the other staff and Ultimately the Pupils in our care (This refers to the Pupil who constantly targets me and damaged my car). Aug 2022 disciplinary. He also targeted another Pupil, who was transferred to Perth then left the service as he was very upset and couldn’t get over what had happened. This was reported in FHS night reports. 1: Why is the abuse from this pupil allowed to continue? and still happening up to my last visit to work in FHS in October 2023. I was also targeted outside work, one time at the local doctor's surgery then at the chemist's; as per the FHS daily report dated 14.12.2022. Staff are dissuaded from pressing charges through the Police as this is deemed as not in the pupil’s best interest. 2: I have raised some other health & safety concerns, in particular, the issues listed below: Low staffing levels Poor outside security lighting – Outside building perimeter checks in the Dark An inefficient On-call support line. – Vital Resource Being subjected to aggressive verbal abuse at work from a Parent during a night shift. (The Management of Health and Safety Regulations (1999) Failure to support staff – Ineffective on call support line. No management availability as backup resource. I believe that in raising these concerns I have asserted my protected employment rights for which I am being treated unfairly. My Employer has subjected me to detriment. I have been harassed and bullied at work and believe I am purposely being controlled and oppressed through the misuse of the company disciplinary procedures not only to destroy my professional reputation but also my confidence and mental health.’’[51]As noted above the claimant felt aggrieved about the situation she faced as far back as 2022 and contacted ACAS for advice in mid 2023. These matters all appear interrelated and part of her overall unhappiness with the respondent’s actions over a number of matters particularly the problems with a particular pupil that led to the disciplinary proceedings.[52]I take account of the health difficulties she faced but am still unconvinced that she could not have raised proceedings considerably earlier than she did. However, even if I was to accept that that it was otherwise just and equitable to allow the claims to proceed I am entitled to take account of the strength of the claims that are pled. I struggle to decern clear complaints of disability discrimination or of specific whistleblowing disclosures. Even the disclosures made are somewhat vague and do not appear to be sufficient to amount to protected disclosure under Section 41A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. As discussed above, any detriments that the claimant seeks to rely on happened long before her contacting this organisation and it is only helpful to look at those papers as it might cast light on the earlier disclosures she said were made.[53]In addition I gained the impression that the claimant believes that many of the respondent’s actions amounted to disability discrimination because of the impact they had on her during a period when she faced a number of serious health difficulties. That is not the test. To amount, for example, to harassment the reason for the respondent’s harassment must relate to the disability. In claims of direct discrimination the employers actions must carried out because of the disability. Section 13 (1) of the Equality Act provides that direct discrimination is where an employer treats someone less favourably than others ‘‘because of a protected characteristic’’ The claimant’s own narrative of events shows that however much she disagreed with the basis for the disciplinary action or the outcome the respondents had a reason to discipline her that was unrelated to her disability. Non-Compliance with Orders[54]For completeness I would add that Mr Menon also sought strike out on the grounds of non-compliance with the order of Judge King (as extended by Judge McFatridge).[55]The approach to be taken in such circumstances was considered by the Court of Appeal in Blockbuster Entertainment v James [2006] EWCA Civ 684 IRLR 630. Lord Justice Sedley said as follows: “5. This power, as the employment tribunal reminded itself, is a Draconic power, not to be readily exercised. It comes into being if, as in the judgment of the tribunal had happened here, a party has been conducting its side of the proceedings unreasonably. The two cardinal conditions for its exercise are either that the unreasonable conduct has taken the form of deliberate and persistent disregard of required procedural steps, or that it has made a fair trial impossible.’’[56]I accepted that the claimant, who is a party litigant, had computer problems in May which affected her ability to comply with the orders. It is striking that when the claimant lodged documents they were clearly set out and detailed. In any event there was no suggestion that she was deliberately obfuscating her position or seeking to delay proceedings or deliberately ignoring the order. In addition, it was apparent from the claimant’s evidence and the medical evidence in the form of the claimant’s G.P. report and the report from Medigold, that she faced a number of serious health difficulties that would have probably impacted on her ability to respond quickly to the demands being made of her. Her responses when they came were detailed and appear to show she was trying to engage with the Tribunal process. In these circumstances, my view is that the claimant’s conduct and the circumstances here would not warrant strike out. Her conduct was not such as to amount to any wilful disregard of the order that had been made and while inconvenient for the respondent’s agents the hearing was able to proceed. It therefore could not be said that the claimant’s actions had prevented a fair trial of the issues taking place as demonstrated by the fact that the hearing was able to proceed .