Mr C Walsh v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham — 2021

Employment Judge Crosfill recorded that Mr Walsh had brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination based on sexual orientation, claims relying on protected disclosures, and breach of contract. The judgment struck out all of the claims; it did not determine the substantive merits of any of them and recorded no remedy award.

The matter had been listed for a preliminary hearing on 12 July 2021 for case management. The claimant did not attend. The judge recorded that the claimant had not complied with orders to serve a schedule of loss, provide further information about his claim, and prepare the first draft of a list of issues. The respondent had applied to strike out the claim, but the judge did not entertain that application at the private preliminary hearing.

The judge recorded that an order was sent to the parties on 15 July 2021 requiring the claimant to make representations why his claims should not be struck out for failure to comply with tribunal orders and/or because he was not actively pursuing the case. The claimant did not write to the tribunal as directed or at all. The judgment found that the failure to provide further information was a serious breach because the ET1 was unclear and the information was necessary for the claims to progress.

The judge found that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and that, given the several breaches, lack of explanation, and absence of any reassurance that the claimant would remedy the position, a fair trial could not take place. The judge also considered whether strike out was in the interests of justice and concluded that it was, because the claimant had several opportunities to remedy the breaches and show that he wished to progress the claim but had failed to engage.