Mr J Kembery v Jake Attfield — 2020

The Tribunal struck out Mr Kembery’s claim under Rule 37(1)(c) and/or (d). The judgment records that he had failed to comply with Tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claim. No substantive determination was made on the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal complaint.

The reasons note that a strike-out warning and postponement order were sent on 20 November 2019 because the hearing listed for 21 and 22 November 2019 was not ready to proceed. The Claimant replied by email later that day saying he was ready to proceed, but he did not respond to the strike-out warning itself. A further strike-out warning and case management orders were then issued on 21 January 2020 requiring him to explain his non-compliance with earlier orders, serve documents and witness statements, address the prospects of success, and state whether he wanted a hearing on strike-out.

The Claimant did not comply with those further orders. By email on 14 March 2020 he said he understood the case was already struck out and added that he was then working in the Middle East and that the people he had complained about had left the organisation, so “we’ll never get to the truth”. The Tribunal said this appeared to be a withdrawal of the claim in all but name and, in any event, was satisfied that the claim should be struck out on the stated grounds.