Sam Graves v Carlton De Souza — 2026

On 16 July 2026, Employment Judge David C. Gardner struck out Sam Graves's remaining complaints against Carlton De Souza under Rule 38 for repeated failure to comply with tribunal orders. These were automatic unfair dismissal based on whistleblowing, disability discrimination, breach of contract/wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim had already been struck out on 19 November 2025 for want of jurisdiction because Graves lacked two years' service. On his own case, his employment ran from 2 to 7 December 2024, although his employment status remained unresolved.

The preliminary hearing on 24 March 2026 had been unable to determine the putative employer's identity or whether Graves was an employee or self-employed because neither party was ready to address those issues. By the July hearing, Graves had not complied with directions made on three occasions requiring witness statements and supporting documents. The judge found that this amounted to persistent breach of the tribunal's orders despite multiple opportunities to provide the evidence and explain the failures.

The judge identified only two items of supporting evidence from Graves: a GP printout recording diagnoses of anxiety, depression and anxiety disorder, and a short unsigned document said to be an employment contract. The printout did not establish whether the diagnoses persisted or their effects and did not mention dyslexia. De Souza said the unsigned document was only a draft and had never been agreed. The judge found the evidence insufficient even to determine employer identity and employment status.

Graves did not attend the July hearing despite knowing it was listed and being told that it would proceed. He told the tribunal clerk that he was on his way to work and would not attend, and he did not respond to the video link sent that morning. The judge proceeded in his absence under Rule 47. Although both parties had indicated that they would not object to an adjournment, the judge held that they could not assume a hearing would be vacated without judicial approval. The strike-out application and repeated warnings had given Graves a reasonable opportunity to make representations under Rule 38(2).

The case was almost 17 months old, and three hearings had occupied 2.5 days of tribunal listing time with very little progress. Applying the overriding objective under Rule 3, the judge concluded that strike-out was appropriate and rejected a lesser sanction, including an unless order. He relied on the number of opportunities already given, his lack of confidence in future compliance, and the disproportionate effect of further hearings on tribunal resources and other users. The proceedings ended without determination of the remaining claims' substantive merits. No monetary award was recorded.