A lawyer’s repeated failure to comply with tribunal orders or respond to letters has cost him the chance to bring a disability discrimination claim.
Daniel Arthur, a conveyancer, brought unfair dismissal and discrimination claims against south Wales firm Newbold Solicitors. The unfair dismissal element was dismissed within four months, while the discrimination claim failed following a hearing in June.
The ruling of Employment Judge Shotter, published on Friday, outlined how Arthur’s conduct of the case was such that there could not be a fair trial. The claimant had not responded to the tribunal and ignored a number of strongly phrased letters, including a strike-out warning, with no explanation provided for his silence.
The judge said: ‘I take the view that the claimant, by his behaviour culminating in a total disregard for case management orders and earlier strike-out warnings given by the respondent and tribunal which resulted in a four-day final hearing allocation being taken out of the list, has forfeited his right to a trial.
‘I am concerned that even if it were to be re-listed at some date in the future, causing further delay in hearing the evidence, we would reach the same position, namely, striking out the claims.’
The tribunal heard that Arthur relied on bipolar disorder, but his disability was disputed by Newbold. The firm also said the decision to sack the claimant was discussed before he went off work sick, and it had a strong defence to the claims supported by contemporaneous documents.
The judge outlined a ‘long and protracted history of non-compliance’ by Arthur. He did not comply with any of the case management orders and ignored correspondence labelled as urgent. Even when the tribunal sent him a strike-out warning two weeks before the final hearing, this was ignored and no objection was made.
Arthur was not in attendance for the strike-out decision and did not respond to attempts to call him. During the hearing, the firm provided evidence from his social media account and Linkedin which showed he had worked as a conveyancer for at least two solicitor firms since leaving Newbold.
The judge added: ‘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.’
