Case 1805847/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1805847/2022
- Decision date
- 13 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone on 29 April 2024. The respondent applied on 8 January 2024 for a strike out order and/or unless order under rule 37(1), relying on the claimant's non-compliance with case management orders and alleged failure actively to pursue the claim. The claimant was in person; the respondent was represented by Mr J Allsop.
The judge recorded that the claimant had not complied with any of the case management orders made after the preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Warren on 5 June 2023, including orders to provide a schedule of loss, disclosure, a final hearing bundle and witness statements. The claimant had sought extra time, referring to ill-health and treatment for an overactive thyroid, and later to domestic violence, but the judge did not accept that those matters prevented compliance. The judge also noted that the claimant had been able to issue a detailed second claim on 4 August 2023, which indicated that she was capable of taking active steps in litigation.
Applying proportionality and considering the reason for default, whether it was deliberate, and whether the final hearing was in jeopardy, the judge held that striking out would be disproportionate at that stage. The final hearing remained listed for five days from 7 to 11 October 2024, so the default had not threatened the hearing date. The judge nevertheless found the claimant's conduct in relation to disclosure had been unreasonable and that she had only acted at the eleventh hour after having had several chances to comply.
The judge refused the respondent's application but warned the claimant that the finding of unreasonable conduct could support a future costs application. The judge noted that the respondent's counsel's brief fee was £2,000 plus VAT and said it was reasonable for the respondent to bring the application because the hearing had been caused by the claimant's unreasonable non-compliance. The claimant was given one last opportunity to comply with all case management orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application for a strike out order and/or unless order under rule 37(1) was dismissed/refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- proportionality
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.