Ms I Slade v Home Office — 2025

At a public preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed that she understood her unfair dismissal claim was bound to fail because she remained employed by the respondent. She also confirmed there were no other payments claims. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim, including constructive dismissal, and the other payments claims were withdrawn and dismissed following withdrawal.

The respondent applied to strike out the remaining claims under Rule 38, relying on non-compliance with case management orders and alleged failure to actively pursue the claims. The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with orders and had not actively pursued the claims, so the thresholds under Rule 38(1)(c) and Rule 38(1)(d) were met, but it did not find the threshold under Rule 38(1)(b) was met.

The tribunal refused to strike out the remaining claims. It considered that a fair trial remained possible before the April 2026 full merits hearing, that the prejudice to the claimant from losing the claims outweighed the prejudice to the respondent, and that the claimant's non-compliance was explained by reliance on her union representative and medical evidence suggesting significant difficulties. It also declined to make a deposit or unless order at that stage.