Miss A Wellspring v IntelligentPA Ltd — 2021

Miss A Wellspring presented her claim on 6 January 2020 after early conciliation and the respondent applied to strike it out at a public preliminary hearing on 4 June 2021. The claimant did not attend, and Employment Judge Tsamados proceeded in her absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.

The tribunal considered the strike-out application under rule 37(1)(a), applying the authorities it cited, including North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias, Anyanwu v South Bank Student’s Union, Tayside Public Transport Company Ltd v Reilly, and Mechkarov v Citibank NA. It accepted that strike-out is exceptional in fact-sensitive claims, but held that the claimant’s complaints had no reasonable prospect of success on the material before it.

The breach of contract claim was struck out because the claimant had not responded to the case management order asking whether she was pursuing it and, if so, on what basis. She did not dispute the respondent’s evidence that one week’s notice pay of £178.50 had been paid, and she was not present to advance any contrary case.

The protected interest disclosure complaint was also struck out. The claimant had not provided the ordered particulars identifying a qualifying disclosure, a protected disclosure, a reasonable belief that the disclosure was made in the public interest, or the person to whom it was made. The tribunal noted that the documents before it, including the claimant’s own bundle narrative and the 1 October 2019 grievance email, did not supply those particulars and were inconsistent with aspects of the pleaded case. The claim was therefore struck out in its entirety, and no tribunal award was made.