In person For the v Respondent — 2025

This was the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's public interest disclosure claim. Employment Judge Postle, sitting alone, heard the application at Norwich by CVP on 17 March 2025 and allowed it. The judgment records that the claimant had been legally represented at the outset, but that representation ceased in January 2024.

The tribunal relied on the procedural history, including that the claim was presented on 25 April 2023, the response was filed on 6 June 2023, and numerous tribunal orders and extensions of time were then made without compliance. The claimant also failed on a number of occasions to engage with the respondent's solicitors. The tribunal noted the claimant's explanation that she had moved house, lost contact with her former neighbour, found a job, and experienced undue stress, but said there was no real substantial explanation for the delay and no medical evidence supporting stress.

Applying the guidance in Weir Valves & Controls (UK) Limited v Armitage and Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust, the tribunal considered whether a lesser sanction would be appropriate and whether there was a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible. It concluded that, given the length of the proceedings, the repeated failures to comply, and the current listing backlog, there was significant disruption, unfairness and prejudice to the respondent. The tribunal also found intentional and contumelious default together with inordinate and inexcusable delay. It therefore struck out the claim and dismissed it.