Mr G Adams v Wickes Building Supplies Limited — 2024

At the preliminary hearing on 27 March 2024, Employment Judge Emery recorded that Mr G Adams did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr Z Malik. The tribunal noted that the claimant had initially progressed the claim, including emailing about his schedule of loss on 2 October 2023, but then did not respond to the respondent's disclosure sent on 15 December 2023 or to later correspondence.

The respondent emailed on 25 January 2024 asking for documents that had been due by 22 December 2023. On 29 February 2024 it asked for an unless order requiring the claimant's documents and witness statement by 8 March 2024. The tribunal also wrote on 13 March 2024 to the claimant's address on the claim form, saying strike-out was being considered under rule 37 on the basis of unreasonable conduct, non-compliance with tribunal orders, and lack of active pursuit. The claimant was asked to object or request a hearing by 15 March 2024 but did not do so. A tribunal clerk later telephoned him on 23 March 2024 and earlier that week, but he did not attend or call back.

Applying rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal referred to Birkett v James and Rolls Royce plc v Riddle. It concluded that the claimant was aware of the hearing, had ignored the tribunal's orders and the respondent's correspondence, and had failed to progress the claim. The tribunal therefore found the conduct unreasonable, held that the claim was not being actively pursued, and struck the claim out. The only order made was that the respondent could renew any costs application within 14 days; no monetary award was made.