R Sharma v University of Nottingham

A tribunal need not formally dispose of an outstanding reasonable-adjustments application before considering strike-out where the applicant’s non-attendance has prevented its determination. It must take account of disability so far as the available evidence permits, including its relevance to procedural defaults and the need for a lesser measure. Applications that would substantially alter proceedings may require evidence about the impairment-related disadvantage and the effect of proposed measures under the overriding objective. Family and private commitments may be considered within that framework and should generally be raised when hearings are listed.

R Sharma brought claims against the University of Nottingham arising from his employment and dismissal, including discrimination claims and a later claim of post-employment victimisation. During case management, he sought extensive reasonable adjustments, including extensions of time, and later informed the Employment Tribunal that he would be unavailable for several months. He did not attend hearings at which his applications could have been considered and did not explain his absences. The Employment Tribunal struck out his claims for unreasonable conduct and failure actively to pursue them. On appeal, Sharma argued that the failure to determine his adjustment requests affected the assessment of his disability, culpability and likely future conduct. The central issue was whether the Tribunal could consider strike-out while those applications remained undetermined, and whether it had adequately considered the evidence about his disability.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was not required to determine the outstanding applications before considering strike-out where Sharma’s non-attendance had prevented their proper consideration. The absence of a formal statement that the applications remained undetermined was not an error of law.
2. Reasonable adjustments. The principles summarised in Heal v University of Oxford [2020] ICR 1294 treat adjustments as a matter of case management, with no automatic entitlement to the measures requested. Adjustments to a single hearing differ from requests that would reshape proceedings, cause substantial delay or disrupt listed hearings. The Tribunal needed evidence identifying the effects of the impairment, the disadvantage each measure addressed and the measure’s wider effect on the proceedings and overriding objective. On the material available, it could not make substantive orders without further evidence and assistance from Sharma.
3. Disability and strike-out. A tribunal exercising a judicial discretion must take relevant mental condition or disability into account: J v K [2019] EWCA Civ 5. The EAT applied Bryce v Trident Group Security Limited [2022] EAT 137, but held that the Employment Judge had considered disability so far as the evidence permitted. The medical material gave little concrete detail about the effect of Sharma’s impairments and did not explain his repeated non-attendance or failure to notify the Tribunal. Much of the conduct relied on concerned family and social arrangements.
4. Strike-out framework and personal commitments. The structured approach under rule 37(1)(b), including proportionality and whether a lesser measure could secure a fair hearing, was set out in Bolch v Chipman [2003] UKEAT 1149 and Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] EWCA Civ 6843. The approach to failure actively to pursue under rule 37(1)(d) was set out in Rolls Royce Plc v Riddle [2008] UKEAT/0044/07. The Employment Judge had considered the persistent non-compliance, prejudice, prospects of a fair hearing and futility of an unless order. Family and private commitments may be weighed under the overriding objective; unless unexpected, they should generally be raised when hearing dates are set. The EAT found no error in the Judge’s assessment. The claimant did not pursue a claim that the Tribunal had breached Convention rights, and accepted that the material before it did not establish that Article 9 was engaged.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal: In R Sharma v University of Nottingham, [2026] EAT 145 , the appeal was dismissed.
2. Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Broughton struck out the claims under rules 37(1)(b) and 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The decision was sent to the parties on 5 September 2024. No citation for that decision is stated.