Mr M Koetsier v Barker and Stonehouse Limited At: By telephone — 2022

The claimant presented a claim form on 18 February 2022 bringing complaints of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, disability discrimination and sex discrimination. The tribunal noted that very few details of the complaints were provided. On 11 April 2022, Employment Judge Loy ordered the claimant to provide further information about his disability and to answer a question about the respondent's correct title, but the claimant did not respond.

The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 4 May 2022 and did not notify the tribunal in advance. At that hearing, Employment Judge Beever made case management orders requiring the claimant to explain his absence, provide further information about his complaints, and send the disability information previously ordered. The respondent then applied to strike out the proceedings under rule 37, and the claimant was given an opportunity to respond in writing, but did not do so. When the matter came before Employment Judge Sweeney, the claimant again did not attend.

The tribunal struck out the whole proceedings under rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that the claimant had failed to comply with the tribunal's orders, had not actively pursued the claims, and had done nothing to comply with any order or explain his non-attendance. Applying the authorities it cited, including Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, Baber v Royal Bank of Scotland plc and Rolls Royce Plc v Riddle, the tribunal held that strike out was a proportionate response under the overriding objective and that no further opportunity would be likely to secure compliance.