(1) Ms Barnsley (2) Ms Derrick (3) Ms Hanna (4) Ms Hopkin (5) Ms Pattenden (6) Ms Smith (7) Ms Vousden (8) Ms Wardle (9) Ms Welch (10) Ms Tolhurst (11) Ms Russell v Group Momentum (Salons) Ltd and 1 other — 2022

The tribunal dealt with an application to strike out Group Momentum (Salons) Ltd's response because of repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders and to progress the litigation. The judgment records a long procedural history, including missed hearings, non-compliance with case management directions, and no disclosure. After a further warning order on 26 May 2022, Mr Watts wrote on 23 June 2022 saying the company could not comply because of business and personal reasons, no employees, no funds to appoint legal representatives, and his caring responsibilities.

Applying rule 37(c) and 37(d), and referring to Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, Evans v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Birkett v James, the tribunal found a persistent and deliberate disregard of required procedural steps and a failure to actively pursue the defence. It accepted that there were serious financial and personal difficulties, but did not regard them as a complete excuse for the continuing default. The tribunal noted that nothing had been disclosed, no extension had been requested, and no satisfactory explanation had been given before the deadlines passed.

The tribunal concluded that a fair trial of the claims on the merits was no longer possible and that striking out the response was proportionate. It therefore struck out Group Momentum's response. It did not enter default judgment, and instead kept the claims listed for a final hearing, shortening the hearing to 26 to 27 September 2022 and vacating 28 September 2022. The judgment does not determine liability or remedies on the substantive employment claims.