Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Strike Out in Case of Claimant with Severe PTSD
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that a claim was correctly struck out because the claimant's health prevented a fair hearing.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against a decision to strike out a claim involving the Greater Glasgow Health Board. The case, which concerned a former employee, highlights the significant difficulties that arise when a claimant’s health condition is inextricably linked to the stress of ongoing legal proceedings.
The Background of the Dispute
The claimant, who had been diagnosed with PTSD and other mental health conditions, initiated a long-running legal challenge against her former employer following her dismissal in 2019. Throughout the litigation, the claimant experienced repeated health flare-ups. Medical evidence indicated that the stress of the tribunal process was worsening her condition, and her health issues were so severe that she was unable to attend a final hearing.
In February 2023, the employment tribunal decided to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules. The tribunal concluded that there was no realistic prospect of the claimant being ready for a hearing in the foreseeable future and that a fair trial was no longer possible.
Tribunal's Discretion and Proportionality
On appeal, the claimant argued that the decision was erroneous. However, Deputy Judge John Bowers KC, sitting in the EAT, upheld the original ruling. The judgment emphasised that while striking out a claim is a draconian step, the tribunal had acted within its discretion.
The judge noted that the tribunal had carefully weighed the need for a fair trial against the lack of a viable path forward. Key factors supporting the strike out included:
- The lack of any medical evidence suggesting the claimant's health would improve enough to participate in a hearing.
- The claimant's total lack of trust in the tribunal process.
- The prejudice caused to the respondent by continued delays.
- The requirement that a fair trial must be conducted within reasonable limits regarding time and resources.
A Necessary Conclusion
The EAT found that the tribunal’s reasoning was sound and proportionate. It rejected the suggestion that staying the proceedings would have been a suitable alternative, given the prognosis. The decision reaffirms the legal principle that, in exceptional circumstances, if a claimant cannot participate in the adversarial process due to health reasons, striking out the claim may be the only fair outcome for all parties involved.
Read the entire judgment here: D. v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2026] EAT 160
