Mr S Ravindran v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2024

The respondent applied for strike out of the claim, relying on an earlier application and asking for a public preliminary hearing. The tribunal decided the application could be determined on the correspondence because the claimant objected to strike out but did not seek a hearing.

The tribunal noted that earlier case management orders had clarified which alleged acts or omissions were within the unamended claim, and that further information did not itself amend the claim. The claimant's representative said no amendment application was being made and accepted that one allegation from the further particulars was not being pursued.

The tribunal refused to strike out the claim. It found that strike out for alleged lateness in complying with earlier orders would be disproportionate, and that time-limit issues and any factual disputes about dates were matters for the final hearing. It also found no proper basis to conclude that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of persuading the tribunal to extend time on just and equitable grounds, while expressing no view on whether the claimant would ultimately succeed on that issue.