In person. For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal heard the respondent's application to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The claimant had presented the case on 10 March 2021 and had indicated an unfair dismissal claim, with a further reference to 'mental health' that led the tribunal to issue a standard clarification order in relation to a possible disability discrimination claim. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not comply with that order by the deadline and did not otherwise clarify or advance the disability discrimination aspect.

The tribunal found a repeated pattern of non-compliance and lack of pursuit. It recorded that further directions were made, that the respondent repeatedly tried to engage with the claimant and prompt compliance, and that the claimant still did not provide the required material. The claimant also failed to comply with an order made by Judge Tynan to explain why the claims should not be struck out, and later failed to attend a hearing before Judge Laidler after another warning that strike out was being considered.

At the final hearing, the claimant had not served a witness statement and said he had moved address and changed email after losing his phone. The tribunal accepted that he had personal matters affecting him, but found that he had not informed the tribunal or the respondent of his new contact details and had not taken responsibility for keeping the tribunal updated. It also rejected his explanation that he had no witnesses as inconsistent with his earlier indication that he could exchange statements.

Applying Rule 37 alongside the overriding objective, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had chosen not to prosecute the case properly and that the threshold for strike out was met. It struck out the claims in their entirety under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d), and the claims were therefore dismissed. No merits findings or monetary remedy were made.