Mr McAtamney (representing himself) For the v Mr C McNaughton (Solicitor) — 2019

The claimant’s pleaded case was a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. On the face of the claim form he said employment began on 29 July 2017 and ended with resignation on 16 May 2018, which would have given less than two years’ service. At the preliminary hearing on 12 August 2019 the tribunal explored whether the claimant relied on an earlier start date at Gnewt Cargo in 2010 and a TUPE transfer to the respondent, but that point had not been included in the claim form.

When asked what contractual breaches by the respondent he relied on, the claimant said he had no complaint about the respondent and referred instead to complaints about others who were not employees of the respondent. The tribunal found he could not identify conduct by the respondent that amounted to a breach of contract or explained why he resigned. It also found that he had not complied with Employment Judge Morton’s order to re-plead his case and give specific details; the document he produced did not provide the required particulars and, on the tribunal’s finding, had not been sent to the tribunal or the respondent.

Applying Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and noting the guidance in Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd, the tribunal held that strike out was justified on two grounds: failure to comply with tribunal orders and lack of reasonable prospects of success. It also noted the need for caution with litigants in person and said it had considered whether to make a deposit order under Rule 39, but the final order made was strike out of the claim. No remedy was awarded.