Case 1601152/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Williams v Conwy County Borough Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601152/2020
- Decision date
- 15 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis preliminary hearing on 14 September 2023 concerned the Claimant's application to strike out the Respondent's response under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The application focused on alleged unreasonable conduct and non-compliance with orders made by Judge McLeese on 19 January 2023 concerning the List of Issues. The Claimant also raised additional disclosure concerns during the hearing, although those were not the basis of the strike-out application as presented.
Applying the guidance in James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd and Bolch v Chipman, the Tribunal found that the Respondent had been guilty of unreasonable conduct in relation to the List of Issues. The Judge accepted that there had been persistent delay over a period of more than six months and that several reminders and promises had been made. However, the Judge was not satisfied that there had been deliberate disregard of the directions, attributing the problem in part to the number of locum solicitors involved.
The Tribunal held that the failures did not make a fair trial impossible. The substance of the List of Issues had been broadly known since at least February 2021, and the Respondent's late revisions broadly echoed the earlier draft. The Judge also considered that the disclosure issues, even if they caused practical difficulty, were a matter for case management and did not justify strike-out on this application.
The application was therefore refused because a fair, albeit re-scheduled, hearing remained possible and strike-out would not be proportionate. No substantive liability issues were determined in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary strike-out application under rule 37(1)(b) and (c), not a substantive merits claim. The Tribunal refused to strike out the Respondent's response. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 684
- Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.