Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Strike Out Despite Disability Evidence Oversight
The EAT has dismissed an appeal regarding a strike out, ruling that an oversight of medical evidence did not change the final outcome.
• public
Background to the Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has delivered its judgment in the case of Grantham v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council [2026] EAT 135. The appellant, Mr John Grantham, appealed against an employment judge's decision to strike out his unfair dismissal claim and a refusal to reconsider the dismissal of his other claims.
The core of Mr Grantham's appeal was that the employment judge (EJ) had failed to take into account a report from his psychologist, Dr Edwards. This report detailed his autism diagnosis and the resulting impact on his ability to comply with case management orders. Mr Grantham argued that this evidence was essential for the tribunal to properly assess the proportionality of striking out his claims.
Tribunal Findings and Legal Principles
Her Honour Judge Joffe, presiding over the EAT, acknowledged that the EJ had made an error by failing to expressly consider the psychologist's letter. However, the EAT noted that the legal framework, including precedents such as Jafri v Lincoln College, requires that an appeal should only be allowed if a legal error affects the final result.
The EAT concluded that the medical evidence provided would not have changed the outcome of the applications. The psychologist's letter did not suggest specific, viable adjustments that could have secured future compliance with tribunal orders, nor did it account for the extensive history of persistent defaults. Furthermore, the tribunal emphasised that fairness in legal proceedings cannot require unlimited time and resources to be expended, particularly when a claim remains unparticularised after years of litigation.
Conclusion on Proportionality
The EAT found that the EJ was entitled to conclude that a fair trial was no longer possible, given the claimant's continued focus on issues already struck out and his inability to narrow his claim. While the EJ's failure to explicitly reference the medical evidence was a procedural error, it was ultimately deemed immaterial. Consequently, the decisions to strike out the unfair dismissal claim and decline reconsideration were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Read the entire judgment here: Grantham v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council [2026] EAT 135
