Mccarron v Road Chef Motorways Ltd and Others: EAT 18 Feb 2019

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
The Claimant’s claims included disability discrimination. The Respondents did not admit the Claimant’s disabled status in law. At a case management hearing, a further Preliminary Hearing was listed, to determine the issue of whether the Claimant was a disabled person in law. The Judge indicated that, on the basis of the current evidence, the Claimant’s case on this point looked likely to fail. Orders were made, setting a deadline for her to provide any further impact statement and any further medical or similar evidence, on which she wished to rely at that hearing. That deadline was subsequently extended, but no further evidence was provided. The Respondents then applied for the disability discrimination claims to be struck out. However, the Tribunal made an Unless Order, in equivalent terms to the original order, but setting a fresh deadline. An impact statement was provide by that deadline, but no other evidence. The Tribunal then issued a notice, under Rule 38(1), declaring that the Unless Order had taken effect and the disability discrimination claims had been dismissed. The Claimant appealed that determination.
Held: On a proper construction of the Unless Order, the direction to provide ‘any’ medical evidence or similar evidence relied upon did not require the Claimant to produce such evidence, but required her, if she wished to rely on ‘any’ such evidence, then to produce it by the deadline set in the Order. Accordingly, the Tribunal had erred in determining that, because the Claimant had not provided any such evidence, she was in breach of the order, and erred in declaring that her disability discrimination claim had therefore been dismissed.


[2019] UKEAT 0268 – 18 – 1802




England and Wales


Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638490