Did not appear and was not represented For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant brought a single unfair dismissal claim. In her claim form she said she had been bullied constantly by the head teacher until it was impossible to work there, and that she was asked for her resignation on 13 January 2023. Her employment ended on 19 February 2023 after she resigned with notice on 20 January 2023.

The hearing on 30 June 2023 was to consider the respondent’s strike out application. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to comply with directions requiring her to provide a schedule of loss and additional information identifying the alleged instances of bullying on which she relied as part of any fundamental breach case, including what was done and when. She did not attend the hearing, was not represented, and had not replied to the tribunal’s orders or correspondence.

Applying rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal found both threshold grounds made out: non-compliance with tribunal orders and a failure actively to pursue the claim. It referred to the two-stage approach in HM Prison Service v Dolby and to the general reluctance to strike out claims of this kind, including the guidance in Anyanwu and Ezsias, but concluded that this was an appropriate case for strike out. In the absence of any explanation from the claimant, the tribunal treated the default as intentional and contumelious.

The tribunal then exercised its discretion to strike out the claim rather than impose a lesser case management sanction. It noted that the claimant had not engaged with the proceedings since the claim was presented, that the respondent could not understand the case it had to meet, and that further tribunal time and expense would be wasted if the matter were relisted or otherwise allowed to continue.