Ms C Araka v FIRZA Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2022

The claimant, Ms C Araka, presented a claim described only as a “Protective Award”. The tribunal recorded that the claim form gave no detail of the basis on which the protective award was pursued. On 12 July 2022 the claimant was asked, through her representatives, to provide particulars of the claim together with the number of employees, but no response was received.

The tribunal noted that the claimant’s representatives later told the tribunal they were no longer acting for her. She was warned by email on 28 July 2022 that strike out was being considered because the claim had not been actively pursued, and she objected by email on 6 August 2022, saying personal matters had restricted her ability to pursue the claim and asking how to proceed now that she was unrepresented. She was then reminded on 17 August 2022 to comply with the case management orders, but no further communication was received.

At the hearing on 2 September 2022 the claimant did not attend and had not notified the tribunal that she would not be attending. After telephone contact she said she was not aware of the hearing and was at work, but she did not offer any explanation for failing to comply with the case management orders or make further efforts to pursue the claim after her representatives ceased acting. The tribunal found that the claim was not particularised at all, so it could not determine it on the material before it.

Having regard to the claimant’s knowledge that she was no longer represented, her failure to comply with the orders, and the absence of any medical reason or other evidence of active pursuit after the strike-out warning, Employment Judge Sharkett found that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim. The claim was therefore struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.