Mr A. Clarke v London General Transport Services Ltd — 2024

The claimant presented his claim on 7 March 2023, asserting disability discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. After the respondent filed its response, there was a lengthy tribunal service delay, but once the case resumed the claimant and his representative did not attend the preliminary hearing on 8 May 2025 and did not comply with the orders made afterwards, including orders to explain the non-attendance, provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out, and provide further information about the claims.

At the public preliminary hearing on 31 July 2025, neither the claimant nor his representative attended or contacted the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded in their absence under Rule 47 and considered the respondent's strike-out application. The Tribunal recorded that there had been no contact from the claimant or his representative since the ET1 was presented, that two hearings had been missed, and that none of the case management orders had been complied with.

The Tribunal considered whether strike out was appropriate, including whether a fair hearing remained possible and whether an unless order should be made first. It found that the ET1 contained very scant details, that the claims were extremely difficult to understand without the ordered further information, and that there was no realistic chance of the claimant engaging with the tribunal process. The entire claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.