Grantham v Bournemouth Council: EAT upholds strike out despite autism evidence oversight

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld the strike out of an unfair dismissal claim and a refusal to reconsider the dismissal of related discrimination claims, despite finding that the employment judge below had erred by failing to expressly consider medical evidence about the claimant's autism.

In Grantham v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council [2026] EAT 135, Her Honour Judge Joffe held that although Employment Judge Cadney should have taken into account a letter from a clinical psychologist diagnosing the claimant with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, the omission made no difference to the outcome given the letter's limited content and the extensive procedural history.

The claimant, acting in person, was summarily dismissed by the respondent council in October 2018 and brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination the following March. The litigation was marked by prolonged non-compliance with case management orders, extended timescales granted at the claimant's request, and repeated strike out warnings, culminating in an unless order in April 2020 with which the claimant only partially complied. His claims were dismissed as a result.

In June 2021, Employment Judge Emerton considered an application to set aside that dismissal. He restored only the unfair dismissal claim, describing the remaining discrimination claims as a "kitchen sink" case that had never been adequately clarified despite numerous opportunities. The following month, the claimant applied for reconsideration of that decision, attaching a letter from Dr Adrian Edwards, a clinical psychologist, describing the effects of the claimant's recently diagnosed autism on his planning, processing and communication abilities.

Non-compliance with directions continued even after the reconsideration application was made, and by January 2022 no trial bundle or witness statements had been produced for the unfair dismissal hearing. At a hearing that month, Employment Judge Cadney dealt with both the outstanding reconsideration application and the respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim, ultimately refusing reconsideration and striking out the remaining claim on the basis of persistent disregard for case management orders spanning almost three years.

Employment Judge Cadney's written reasons made no reference to Dr Edwards' letter. A subsequent Burns/Barke enquiry produced a response suggesting the letter may not have been before him, although Judge Joffe considered this unlikely given that both the claimant's application and the respondent's submissions referred to it directly.

Drawing on the developing case law regarding tribunals' common law duty to consider reasonable adjustments for disabled litigants, including Bryce v Trident Group Security and Hylton v Royal Mail Group, Judge Joffe accepted that the failure to grapple with the psychologist's letter was an error in the exercise of the judge's discretion on both the reconsideration and strike out applications. However, applying the approach set out by Laws LJ in Jafri v Lincoln College, she concluded the error was immaterial. The letter, she found, offered no realistic prospect that further adjustments beyond additional time, of which the claimant had already had a great deal, would have secured compliance or enabled a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe. The only adjustment the claimant himself proposed, informal mediation or dialogue, was not one the tribunal could impose on the respondent.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with both the strike out of the unfair dismissal claim and the refusal to reconsider the earlier dismissal of the other claims upheld.