Mrs R Mathews v Concentrix CVG Intelligent Contact Limited — 2023

Mrs Mathews brought claims of disability discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, and unpaid holiday pay. The judgment records that she later submitted an application to amend to add further discrimination claims and sent a resignation letter, but did not make a specific application to amend to include constructive dismissal in accordance with earlier directions.

The tribunal found that the claims required further clarification. Employment Judge Housego had directed the claimant to provide further information about the disability, the disability discrimination claims, and the monetary claims, and to make a formal amendment application if she sought to pursue constructive dismissal. The claimant did not attend the February 2023 telephone preliminary hearing, did not provide the ordered particulars in any meaningful sense, and did not attend the October 2023 preliminary hearing despite contact attempts by the tribunal.

Employment Judge Cadney considered the respondent's strike-out application under rule 37(1)(b) and rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules, alongside the overriding objective and authorities on unreasonable conduct, active pursuit, proportionality, and whether a fair trial remained possible. The judge accepted that the claimant was a litigant in person and that strike-out was a draconian sanction, but found that she had conducted the proceedings unreasonably by failing to attend two hearings without explanation and had failed actively to pursue the claim.

The tribunal concluded that, although a fair trial might still have been possible in an absolute sense and no specific prejudice from delay was identified, it was not fair to require the respondent to face further unreasonable and disproportionate expense when the claimant had been given opportunities to clarify her claims. The whole claim was struck out. No remedy or monetary award was made.