Mr E Belmar - v Apple Retail UK Ltd — 2023

The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued and because the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders. The judgment records that the preliminary hearing listed for 15 August 2023 was vacated and would not take place.

The reasons state that the claimant did not attend a preliminary hearing on 20 April 2023 before Employment Judge Codd, and that the tribunal could not contact him. Employment Judge Codd proceeded in the claimant's absence and made orders requiring the claimant by 10 May 2023 to submit a schedule of loss and provide further and better particulars of his claim. A written strike out warning was also issued on 20 April 2023, telling the claimant that the tribunal was considering striking out the claim because he had failed to attend and the claim was not being actively pursued.

The claimant did not respond by 10 May 2023 or at all, did not comply with the orders, and did not give reasons objecting to strike out. The respondent's solicitors applied on 16 May 2023 for the claim to be struck out on the basis that it was not being actively pursued and that the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders.

Employment Judge Baty found that the claimant had not complied with Employment Judge Codd's orders and was not actively pursuing the claim. The judge considered strike out to be proportionate, noting that the claimant had not contacted the tribunal or explained his failure to pursue the claim or comply with the orders. No remedy was awarded.